Public Record / Est. 2026

Documenting what
platforms don't want
you to see.

Every case here is real. Every contradiction is sourced. Every driver who submitted a report did so because the system failed them — and the platform gave them a script instead of an answer.

1 Cases documented
3 Support contradictions (Case #001)
0 Issues resolved by platform

Don Quixote did not fight the windmill because he thought he could win.
He fought it because he could not look away.

The system is large. The terms of service are long. The support scripts are rehearsed. The chats time out. The agents disconnect.

We know.

But there is a difference between a person who is wrong and a system that is designed to make you feel wrong. Cervantes understood this four hundred years ago. The knight who charges the windmill is not deluded — he is the only one honest enough to name what he sees.

This site is not a crusade. It is a record.
The windmill does not fall. But it gets documented.

Gig platforms operate on information asymmetry. They know exactly what happened. They know exactly which rating was removed, why your satisfaction rate changed, and what their policy actually says. But they give you a script. We give you the transcript. This is a public archive — built by drivers, read by everyone.

01 / SUBMIT
You report the incident

Fill out the case form with your platform, the incident details, and any chat logs or screenshots you have. Anonymous submissions accepted.

02 / REVIEW
We verify and structure

Each case is reviewed for consistency, cross-checked against platform policies, and structured to show contradictions clearly. No editorializing — just facts.

03 / PUBLISH
It becomes a permanent record

Published with full documentation. Indexed by search engines. Shareable. The kind of transparency platforms refuse to provide themselves.

CASE-001 Open Uber Eats

Driver penalized for restaurant's missing item — platform provided three contradictory explanations

A Platinum-rated driver received a thumbs-down and a "Professionalism with customers" warning after a restaurant failed to include a drink in a sealed delivery bag. The driver, prohibited by policy from opening sealed bags, personally returned to the restaurant at their own expense to deliver the missing item. Despite the customer contacting Uber Support to retract the rating, the satisfaction rate remained unchanged. Uber Support provided three mutually contradictory explanations across multiple agents — none of which accounted for the visible data in the driver's account.

Key contradiction on record Bianca, Uber Priority Support: "A removed rating does not always result in a change to the visible thumbs up/down counts shown in the app."

If a removed rating does not change the visible counts or the satisfaction rate — what, exactly, was removed?
rating-system restaurant-error support-contradiction sealed-bag-policy
views ·  shares Read full case →
CASE-002 Pending Review

Awaiting submission — Submit your case

This space is for the next driver whose platform failed them. If that's you, your case deserves to be documented.

"I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for fairness — and when platforms refuse to provide it, I build the place that will."

Read the full story →