The certified class excludes current and recent Uber drivers bound by Uber’s 2014 arbitration clause.

Uber Technologies Inc. will have to defend a group lawsuit brought by drivers seeking the pay and benefits of employees.

“In California, those laws are particularly strict and say that employers have to reimburse their employees for expenses that are required to do the job”, she says.

The ruling increases the number of potential California plaintiffs in the lawsuit claiming Uber drivers are incorrectly classified as independent contractors when they are actually employees. The group will include, out of a maximum class of 160,000 drivers, those who worked for the company directly between August 2009 and June 2014.

The suit was filed in a San Francisco court by three drivers who contend they are employees and therefore, entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance.

Uber, in urging Chen to reject allowing the case to proceed on behalf of all California drivers, presented testimonials from about 400 drivers who indicated they preferred to retain their independent status. Tuesday’s order places some restrictions on the class, and it’s unclear how many of those 160,000 drivers will ultimately be part of the suit. Drivers who contracted through another company are also ineligible.

Uber’s lawyer Ted Boutrous, from the firm Gibson Dunn, said the company is likely to appeal Chen’s decision because it’s “based on several key legal errors”. And one of the three plaintiffs, Thomas Colopy, was also found to not qualify. “This decision is a major victory for Uber drivers”.

Uber argued that the vast majority of its drivers prize their status as independent contractors permitting them to work whenever and as often as they like.

Uber’s six-year-old ride-hailing service has become increasingly popular with consumers and investors, and has emerged as a serious threat to the taxi industry. Uber allows for tip-free rides. However, that doesn’t mean Uber will have an easy time going forward. This is because the court has ruled that those drivers never had a contract directly with Uber. To join the class, drivers also must have signed up to drive directly with Uber or an Uber subsidiary, among other restrictions. This new decision by the US District Judge is one of the biggest and most harmful moves against Uber, as it marks an end to the company’s most powerful argument when defending itself from accusations of not demanding any kind of commercial driver’s licence. “But these differences do not demonstrate that the named Plaintiffs are not typical class representatives”, Chen wrote.

California has been a tough legal climate for Uber.

Chen agreed that the content of each training session may have varied, but the argument “misses the point”.