What Karnataka’s bike taxi ban can learn from Brazil’s struggles over gig work
Two weeks ago, the Karnataka government banned bike-hailing services like Rapido and Uber Moto after confusion over their regulation. A similar ban on bike services was imposed in Brazil this year, but the Brazilian government’s systemic approach of a flexible legal category offers important lessons for India.
K. C. Mujeebu Rahman
Published on: 1 July 2025, 12:35 pm
ON JUNE 16, THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA banned app-based bike taxi services such as Rapido and Uber Moto, citing safety concerns, regulatory confusion, and pressure from traditional transport unions. Framed as a necessary move to protect public interest, the ban instantaneously disrupted the livelihoods of thousands of gig workers who rely on the flexibility and accessibility of platform-based driving jobs.
This regulatory action was not unprecedented. Indian states have long responded inconsistently to the rise of gig economy transport services. While the judiciary occasionally intervenes to clarify the legal standing of these services, state governments continue to oscillate between tolerance and prohibition. These stopgap measures are indicative of a deeper policy vacuum in India, one that has failed to reconcile the growing prevalence of app-based labour with the formal frameworks of labour law and public safety.
A parallel and equally contentious debate, interestingly, is unfolding in Brazil, particularly in the city of São Paulo. In May 2025, a São Paulo state court issued a ban on motorcycle taxi services offered through platforms like Uber Moto and 99, citing safety concerns following fatal accidents. The court ruled that platforms were operating illegally, in violation of municipal rules that bar motorcycle-based passenger services.
This was not São Paulo’s first confrontation with platform-based mototáxis. As early as 2023, the city had introduced a municipal ban, prompting legal battles and defiance from major platforms. Uber and 99 argued that federal transport law permitted motorcycle services, challenging the legitimacy of local prohibitions. The situation led to a jurisdictional standoff between city authorities and platform companies, similar in many ways to what Bengaluru faced in dealing with bike taxis.
These stopgap measures are indicative of a deeper policy vacuum in India, one that has failed to reconcile the growing prevalence of app-based labour with the formal frameworks of labour law and public safety.
But what makes Brazil’s approach more instructive is the simultaneous effort at the federal level to address these conflicts through systemic reform. In early 2024, President Lula da Silva’s government introduced a landmark bill to recognize a new legal category: the “trabalhador autônomo de plataforma”, which translates to "self-employed platform worker" or "autonomous platform worker." This proposal is an ambitious attempt to balance flexibility with protection.
It does not classify platform workers as traditional employees, but instead offers them core entitlements such as a minimum hourly wage, pension and maternity benefits, and limited working hours. These rights would be funded jointly by platforms and workers, enabling gig workers to retain independence while accessing a social safety net.
This dual response - prohibition at the city level, reform at the national level - captures the tension at the heart of the platform economy: the clash between the informality of gig work and the formality of state regulation. In São Paulo, gig workers responded to the ban not only with legal appeals but also with public protests and union advocacy. They call for regulation, not repression, echoing similar demands made by gig workers across Indian cities.
