Uber's $81 Million Tax Defeat, Canva's Restructure and the Reality of AI Jobs: Seven Stories That Matter

5 November 2026 | Legally Insightful | Law, Finance, Business & Technology

It was quite a Wednesday for Australian business.

Uber lost a major payroll-tax appeal in the High Court. The Australian Taxation Office secured an important victory in a tax-avoidance dispute. ASIC announced more than $4 million in paid infringement notices.

Meanwhile, Canva's organisational restructure has raised fresh questions about employment and technological change, just as new government statistics offer a more nuanced picture of artificial intelligence's effect on Australian jobs.

And if that isn't enough, Australia's privacy regulator has examined offshore access to sensitive court recordings, while Britain is proposing tougher safeguards around police facial recognition.

Seven stories, several important legal distinctions, and one recurring lesson: what a business calls something isn't necessarily what the law considers it to be.

1. Uber loses its $81 million payroll-tax appeal

On 4 November 2026, Australia's High Court dismissed Uber Australia's appeal in Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] HCA 40.

The dispute concerned approximately $81 million in New South Wales payroll-tax assessments associated with fares remitted to Uber drivers for financial years ending between June 2015 and June 2020.

Uber collected passenger fares electronically, deducted its service charges and remitted the remaining amounts to drivers.

The legal question was whether those payments were captured by the relevant-contract provisions of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW).

The High Court held, by majority, that the arrangements fell within the relevant provisions.

Why this matters

The decision illustrates the difference between conventional employment relationships and the broader arrangements that certain payroll-tax laws can capture.

Importantly, the Court did not decide that every Uber driver is an employee for every legal purpose.

The ruling concerns the application of particular New South Wales payroll-tax provisions to Uber's arrangements.

For digital platforms, marketplaces and businesses using intermediary payment structures, the implications are significant.

Describing a company as a payment-collection agent does not necessarily determine the tax treatment of the payments it processes.

Businesses need to examine the actual contractual arrangements, the services performed and the applicable legislation.

The takeaway: A payment's commercial label does not necessarily determine its legal character.

Sources: High Court — Uber case and High Court recent judgments.

2. The High Court rules on a $56 million capital-loss arrangement

Another significant tax decision arrived on the same day.

In Commissioner of Taxation v Merchant [2026] HCA 39, the High Court considered transactions involving the Merchant Family Trust and related entities.

The arrangements included a sale of Billabong International shares to a related superannuation fund, producing a capital loss of approximately $56 million.

The trust also disposed of interests in Plantic Technologies, generating a substantial capital gain.

The central question was whether Australia's general anti-avoidance rules applied to the arrangements.

The High Court unanimously concluded that the relevant Billabong share-sale scheme had been entered into or carried out for the dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit.

However, the Court reached a different conclusion on a separate dividend-stripping issue involving debt forgiveness.

Why this matters

Tax law generally permits taxpayers to organise their affairs efficiently.

But there is a distinction between obtaining legitimate tax advantages through commercial transactions and arrangements caught by specific anti-avoidance provisions.

The legal analysis depends on the statutory tests, the objective circumstances and the commercial substance of the arrangements.

The decision also demonstrates why major judgments should not be reduced to simplistic headlines.

The Commissioner succeeded on an important Part IVA issue, but not every argument succeeded.

For family groups, trustees and advisers, the practical lesson is to consider related transactions together and carefully document genuine commercial purposes.

The takeaway: Tax efficiency is not inherently unlawful, but arrangements must withstand the applicable anti-avoidance tests.

Source: High Court — Judgments delivered 4 November 2026.

3. ASIC announces $4.356 million in infringement notices paid by 22 companies

ASIC has announced that 22 large proprietary companies paid infringement notices arising from alleged failures to lodge audited financial reports on time for the 2025 financial year.

Each notice was for $198,000, producing a combined total of $4,356,000.

The companies identified by ASIC operate across industries including construction, lending, technology, retail and hospitality.

ASIC also reported that its broader financial-reporting surveillance program had generated payments for 70 infringement notices totalling more than $13.7 million since August 2025.

Some companies contacted by the regulator reportedly had not appreciated that they were required to lodge financial reports.

Why this matters

A proprietary company is not automatically exempt from public financial-reporting obligations.

Requirements can depend on the company's size, ownership, structure and other statutory criteria.

For directors, the key question is whether the business has correctly identified its reporting obligations and implemented processes to meet them.

That includes preparing financial statements, arranging audits where required and monitoring statutory lodgement deadlines.

There is also an important legal distinction in ASIC's announcement.

Payment of an infringement notice does not constitute an admission of guilt or liability.

The notices therefore should not be described as criminal convictions or judicial findings that the companies committed the alleged breaches.

Nevertheless, ASIC's enforcement activity illustrates its increasing use of data to identify potential non-compliance.

The takeaway: Financial-reporting compliance should be managed proactively, rather than waiting for a regulator to identify an overdue report.

Source: ASIC media release 26-268MR — Financial-reporting infringement notices.

4. Canva's restructure affects 1,271 people — but the numbers require careful interpretation

Australian-founded design platform Canva has announced major organisational changes affecting 1,271 people, approximately 22% of its workforce.

The announcement, covered in Australian reporting on 4 November, describes a restructure involving changes to teams, roles and work locations.

Some employees will leave the business, while others may experience changes to their responsibilities or be asked to relocate.

Canva has not publicly provided a precise breakdown of each category in its initial announcement.

That distinction is important.

Saying that 1,271 people are affected by a restructure is not the same as saying 1,271 employees have been made redundant.

Is artificial intelligence responsible?

Technological change is clearly affecting how software businesses operate.

However, Canva's announcement does not establish that AI directly replaced every departing employee.

The company identified broader organisational and commercial considerations.

That makes it inappropriate to attribute the entire restructure to automation without stronger evidence.

Why this matters

Large restructures raise employment-law questions about consultation, redeployment, relocation, termination entitlements and compliance with the laws of the jurisdictions involved.

They also raise broader questions about how businesses adapt their workforce to changing technologies and commercial conditions.

For employees, the distinction between a role change, relocation and redundancy can have significant practical and legal consequences.

The takeaway: Workforce announcements need to be read carefully. The number of people affected is not necessarily the number losing their jobs.

Sources: Canva — An important update on our team and ABC News — Canva restructure.

5. New ABS figures challenge assumptions about AI taking Australian jobs

On 4 November, the Australian Bureau of Statistics published new findings on the relationship between artificial intelligence and job vacancies.

The results are particularly interesting alongside Canva's announcement.

For August 2026, approximately 82% of surveyed businesses reported that AI had not affected their job-vacancy levels.

Around 4% reported that AI had reduced vacancies, while fewer than 1% reported an increase.

The effects differed across industries, with some sectors reporting a greater impact than others.

Does that mean AI isn't affecting employment?

No.

The ABS figures measure reported effects on job vacancies among surveyed businesses.

They do not measure every possible effect of AI on existing employment, wages, productivity or future workforce requirements.

Nor do they establish that AI will have little effect indefinitely.

A business may adopt AI to improve productivity without immediately changing the number of vacancies it advertises.

Another business may restructure teams or stop recruiting for particular functions.

Both developments can occur within the same economy.

Why this matters

The figures provide an important counterweight to overly simplistic claims about automation.

AI is changing some jobs and business processes, but its effects are uneven.

A single company's restructuring announcement cannot establish the economy-wide effect of AI.

Equally, an aggregate survey finding cannot establish that individual workers or industries are unaffected.

The takeaway: Understanding AI's labour-market impact requires evidence about particular tasks, industries and employment outcomes — not just dramatic headlines.

Source: ABS — AI has low impact on job vacancies in August.

6. Australia's privacy regulator examines offshore access to court recordings

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has published the outcome of preliminary inquiries into VIQ Solutions, a provider of transcription services.

The inquiries concerned reports that sensitive Australian court recordings and transcripts had been accessed offshore.

The regulator established that a limited number of Australian court-hearing recordings had been accessed by three employees of an India-based subcontractor between September 2025 and February 2026.

The OAIC found that the affected courts had implemented privacy-preserving contractual arrangements, but the relevant access occurred outside those arrangements.

After considering the circumstances, the courts' responses and VIQ Solutions' liquidation, the OAIC decided that further regulatory action would not be a proportionate use of its resources.

Why this matters

The incident illustrates a fundamental challenge in outsourcing.

A contract can restrict how sensitive information may be accessed, but contractual wording alone cannot prevent inappropriate access.

Organisations also need effective technical controls, subcontractor oversight, access monitoring and incident-response arrangements.

That is particularly important where information concerns legal proceedings, medical records, financial accounts or other sensitive matters.

It is equally important to report the regulator's conclusion accurately.

The OAIC did not announce a financial penalty or a final finding of a Privacy Act contravention.

The takeaway: Effective privacy governance requires contracts and operational controls to work together.

Source: OAIC — Preliminary inquiries into VIQ Solutions.

7. Britain proposes stronger safeguards for police facial recognition

The United Kingdom's Home Office has announced plans for a clearer legal framework governing police use of facial-recognition technology.

The proposed changes include an independent oversight body, stronger requirements for testing potential bias and discrimination, and safeguards intended to ensure use is targeted and proportionate.

The government also intends to introduce a separate code for businesses using facial recognition to address crime.

Why this matters

Facial recognition presents an important public-policy challenge.

The technology can assist law enforcement in identifying people sought by authorities.

But it can also create risks involving incorrect identification, disproportionate surveillance, privacy and unequal outcomes.

Effective safeguards therefore need to address not only whether the technology works, but also when it may be used, who authorises it and what happens when it produces an incorrect result.

The legal distinction is straightforward: the UK announcement concerns proposed safeguards, not a declaration that every measure is already law.

For Australian organisations, the debate is relevant to broader questions about biometric information and the governance of surveillance technology.

The takeaway: The legitimacy of powerful identification technology depends on enforceable safeguards, independent oversight and proportionate use.

Source: UK Home Office — Stronger laws for police using facial recognition technology.

---

The bigger picture: labels are not enough

Today's developments share an interesting theme.

Uber's payment arrangements had to be assessed against payroll-tax legislation rather than commercial descriptions.

The High Court examined the substance and purpose of transactions in a major tax dispute.

ASIC's infringement notices illustrated the difference between alleged non-compliance and established liability.

Canva's announcement demonstrated why affected roles should not automatically be counted as redundancies.

And the ABS reminded us that the effects of AI are more complicated than a single employment headline suggests.

Across law, business and technology, the same questions keep appearing.

What actually happened? What evidence supports the claim? And what legal consequences follow?

Those questions are often more useful than the headline itself.

Frequently asked questions

Did the High Court decide that Uber drivers are employees?

No. The decision concerned particular New South Wales payroll-tax provisions and their application to Uber's payment arrangements.

Did Canva announce 1,271 redundancies?

No. Canva said 1,271 people were affected by organisational changes, including role changes, potential relocations and departures. Its initial announcement did not specify the number of redundancies.

Does the ABS research show AI isn't affecting Australian jobs?

No. It measures businesses' reported experience of AI affecting job vacancies, rather than all employment outcomes.

Did ASIC find the 22 companies guilty of financial-reporting breaches?

ASIC issued infringement notices concerning alleged failures to lodge reports. Payment of those notices does not constitute an admission of guilt or liability.

Are the UK's new facial-recognition safeguards already in force?

The 4 November announcement outlined intended legislative and oversight changes. Proposals and enacted requirements should be distinguished.

---

Disclaimer: Legally Insightful provides general news, legal and financial commentary for educational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal, taxation, employment, investment or personal financial advice. Legal obligations and outcomes depend on individual circumstances and the relevant jurisdiction. Readers should seek appropriately qualified advice before making decisions.

This edition reflects information reported or materially published during the 24 hours ending at approximately 5:00 am AEST on 5 November 2026.

Legally Insightful — Making sense of law, money and business.