A federal judge in North Carolina ruled Wednesday in favor of an Uber driver who is suing the company, paving the way for a possible notable expansion of the lawsuit.

In 2016, Michael Hood, an Uber driver, claimed in a proposed class-action lawsuit last year that he has been misclassified as an independent contractor rather than an employee, and as such is consistently being paid below minimum wage after expenses. At one point in 2015, after expenses, Hood alleges he made less than $2 per hour—well below North Carolina’s minimum wage at the time, which was $7.25 per hour.

His case is one of more than a dozen such cases pending against Uber that have attempted to make a legal determination as to whether this distinction is proper, and if it is not, what should be done about it. Other lawsuits against other so-called "gig economy" startups are also pending as well.

For now, most other cases have settled, or they haven’t progressed far enough. If Uber or other companies lose in court, they could stand to owe hundreds of millions of dollars in back pay, among other possible penalties. However, such a final determination could take years.

US District Judge Catherine Eagles' ruling allowed the case, Hood v. Uber, to continue as a conditional collective action—a variant of class-action suits. Unlike regular class-action suits, where all possible plaintiffs join a case automatically unless they specifically choose to opt out (and rely on state law), collective actions are opt in and are bound by federal law.

Hood’s lawyer, Paul Maslo , told Ars that he expected "thousands" to join the suit and called the new ruling "fantastic." If thousands of drivers do join,could become one of the largest labor cases brought against Uber ever.

A collective action suit is the only way to bring a nationwide labor case under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). While there are several related lawsuits that have been filed against Uber all over the country, the other related case that is the furthest along, O’Connor v. Uber, is being decided under California state laws, including the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer representing the class of Uber drivers in O’Connor, told Ars that an FLSA claim "is far more difficult to win," and that while it does "provide protection for overtime and minimum wage," it does not cover expense reimbursement, but California state law does. (She also noted that Uber has appealed the class certification in her case, which will be argued before the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in September.)

The Boston-based attorney, Liss-Riordan, also pointed out that her case covers 240,000 class members, notably more than Hood is likely to end up with.

In this case, all drivers nationwide who have worked or who still work for Uber and opted out of arbitration are eligible to join thecase. Arbitration, a private quasi-legal process, generally favors corporations over individuals.

"I hope that other gig economy cases will successfully force companies to pay workers the wages and other benefits they earned under the law," Byron Goldstein, an Oakland, California-based labor lawyer who has previously brought similar cases against other startups e-mailed Ars.

"It is unclear what effect this particular case will have. What has a much bigger effect is whether companies can continue to get a get out of jail free pass through the use of forced arbitration."

Meanwhile, Matt Kallman, an Uber spokesman, sent Ars a statement noting that the company was "disappointed with this decision [in Hood], particularly because a federal district court recently denied conditional certification in another case. We look forward to challenging whether this case should proceed as a collective action, as well as litigating the merits of these claims."