Minimum wage (probably including time you're available but without a fare), overtime, payroll tax, workers comp... and back-pay for all that for the last few years? Enormous, I'd imagine.

That's only California. If the IRS comes to the same conclusion, they'll owe all of that nationwide.

IF they financially survive the back pay, etc, then numerous policy changes around pages 8 to 10 or so of my scanned copy of the judgement can be applied to mostly patch around the issues.

The requirements that uber enforces on its (now) employees would pretty much have to be wiped to make it more of a contractor relationship than an employee relationship. No more banning 2-door cars or 11 year old cars, no more banning tips, no more auto-filtering out all less than perfect records, drivers would have to negotiate fares not uber, no more background checks. Basically uber does a traditional hiring process without actually hiring, whereas they'd have to move to a traditional contracting relationship. Uber forbids contracting relationships in their ToS, its specifically forbidden to hire a subcontractor. Clauses like that really set off labor boards and the IRS about "fake" contracting.

Specifically, uber would have to let the end user decide not to accept a ride in my new 2-door Yaris or my wife's 2004 Prius rather than denying for me. Also if riders consistently give me 1 star because of my HN posting habits or whatever, they'd have to let the riders decide to not accept me rather than autofiltering out all sub 4.6 or whatever grade-inflated score they use. They couldn't run a background check on me to join the service, MAYBE they could get away with running it and putting the result semi-anonymously online for the rider to make a judgement. They would have to let me set the minimum fare I'd demand, which actually sounds pretty nice for drivers rather than existing "yes/no" take it or leave it, and tips would have to be permitted.

Possibly they could spawn off a "union" or professional organization that only allows members to join that passed a background check and then only allow members to advertise themselves as part of the union. Like my roofing contractor or my unionized electrician.

There's a widely held belief, that is completely wrong, that a contractor is just an employee who is treated like dirt in exchange for more money than an employee gets; essentially a gambling relationship. The actual legal position is considerably more complicated and is not concerned with popular beliefs.

Wait a second. I understand that they will have to let drivers negotiate rate but as a contractor why can't they enforce that you must have certain type of car? E.g. I did contracting for financial firms in NYC and certain ones expected me to wear business formals (including a tie) whenever I worked in the office. Why can't Uber have similar requirement that you must have car with certain features?

Real contractors don't have dress codes (beyond some obvious OSHA or contracted model-type positions). This is more an indication of a fake contractor relationship with the financial firm than an indication of how contractor relationships operate. My contracts with roofers and electricians and plumbers have never specified their make and model and body style of their truck.

Another point I didn't mention was they were very unhappy that the company and the contractor were in the exact same line of business, this is often an indicator of problems. A company that makes dispatching middleman software for the taxi industry couldn't possibly care less about what an end user of their software wears while at work. On the other hand, a company that's a stealth taxi driver employer is going to get all out of whack about employee dress codes, even if they call the employees "contractors".

"Do it exactly how we say" is classic employer relationship. "Produce this documented contractual end result" is more typical contractor relationship.

I'm not saying that wearing torn jeans and tee shirt to a financial contract job is wise, in practice dressing that way is probably a good way not to get renewed. Dress codes are for employees and if they're happy with the risk reward ratio for turning contractors into employees, well, that substantial and expensive legal risk is their problem. Maybe for "image" and marketing reasons it really is financially worth it for them.

If they do, then the argument would be made that the drivers aren't contractors, as they don't have control over their own equipment.

Dress codes are a different manner.

If this sticks, Uber cannot absorb that cost and would have to shed many of the drivers - rendering Uber, as we know it now, defunct.

UberX is now defunct in Los Angeles at least, I assume they've shut it off for all of CA. No cars available this morning.

The IRS exists in those other areas, though, and may take a similar look at their operations.

They're appealing so we'll see.

Bankruptcy.