20,000 Deliveroo Riders Win Major Court Victory: Wage Reclassification and Back Pay Looming

Milan's Judicial Intervention Against Deliveroo Signals a Watershed Moment for Italy's Gig Workforce

The Procura della Repubblica di Milano has placed Deliveroo under urgent judicial supervision, marking the second major enforcement action in as many weeks against a major food-delivery platform accused of systematic labor exploitation. This intervention directly addresses how thousands of riders across Italy face conditions that magistrates officially term "caporalato digitale" — the algorithmic equivalent of mafia-controlled farm labor.

Why This Matters

• 20,000 riders nationwide face potential employment reclassification, with a judicial administrator now empowered to audit payroll, contracts, and working conditions; many currently earn €3-4 per delivery gross.

• By December 2, 2026, Italy must implement EU Directive 2024/2831, cementing the principle that actual working conditions — not contractual labels — determine employment status and trigger full legal protections.

• Wage increases and back pay potential: If the judicial administrator confirms subordinate employment, affected riders could receive compensation reaching back months or years, plus mandatory salary adjustments to meet collective bargaining minimums around €7.50-10 per hour.

The Investigation: Digital Trafficking at Scale

Since 2021, Carabinieri labor inspectors have documented what amounts to industrial-scale wage theft. The Milan prosecutor Paolo Storari determined that between 300 and 20,000 riders across Milan and the national territory were engaged under conditions that prosecutors argue constitute criminal exploitation under Italy's caporalato statutes.

The mechanics are straightforward and damning. Riders, many of whom are migrant workers from North Africa, South Asia, and Eastern Europe, accept what appears to be flexible, autonomous work. What emerges from the investigation is something quite different: workers toiling 7 days a week for 10-17 hours daily, earning as little as €450 monthly net—roughly 45% below the national average wage—while bearing all operational costs themselves.

A representative rider profile from the investigation shows someone working an exhausting schedule specifically because the per-delivery compensation (€3-4 gross) forces accumulation of hours to sustain a family. Many hold second jobs. This is the predictable output of an algorithmic management system designed to extract maximum value from workers while shedding legal obligations onto them.

The investigation unearthed a crucial detail: despite being contractually classified as freelancers, riders' every action is dictated by Deliveroo's algorithms. Route assignment, shift allocation, performance metrics, and continuity of work are entirely controlled by the platform's software. This hetero-organization—the technical term for external control disguised as autonomy—meets Italian labor law's definition of subordinate employment.

Glovo's Precursor: One Month Before Deliveroo

In mid-February 2026, prosecutors requested judicial supervision for Foodinho Srl (Glovo's Italian entity), which employs approximately 40,000 riders across the country. On February 19, a Milan preliminary investigations judge (GIP) upheld the request. The synchronicity is significant: prosecutors have clearly been investigating multiple platforms in parallel, working from a centralized understanding of how these companies operate identically—same wage model, same algorithmic control, same externalization of risk.

What prosecutors discovered at Glovo mirrors Deliveroo precisely: riders generating just €2-4 per delivery while working unsustainable hours, no accident insurance, no benefits, no job security. The appointment of judicial administrators at both companies signals that magistrates view these exploitations as systematic criminal enterprises rather than isolated labor disputes.

Constitutional Violation and Criminal Charge

Prosecutors grounded their case in Article 36 of the Italian Constitution, which guarantees workers the right to remuneration "proportionate and sufficient to ensure a free and dignified existence." When compensation falls far below poverty-line thresholds, this guarantee is violated.

The formal charges levied against Deliveroo Italy Srl and its chief executive include aggravated labor exploitation (caporalato aggravato), applied through corporate administrative liability frameworks. This dual approach means both the company as an entity and its leadership face potential criminal sanctions—a structural shift that moves beyond civil employment disputes into criminal territory.

The judicial administrator appointed by the court now wields substantial authority: auditing financial records, interviewing workers and management, ordering operational changes, and determining whether riders must be reclassified as employees under the Contratto Collettivo Nazionale del Lavoro (CCNL) for logistics workers. If reclassification is mandated, Deliveroo faces not only future compliance costs but potentially massive back-pay liabilities spanning years.

The Algorithmic Control Question

Central to prosecutors' case is whether algorithmic management constitutes "control" within labor law's meaning. The Bologna Tribunal already settled this question in 2024 when it ruled that Deliveroo's "Frank" algorithm—which penalized riders for canceling shifts or missing logins, effectively blacklisting them from future work—was discriminatory and constituted illegal surveillance.

Frank tracked rider geolocation continuously, ostensibly for order fulfillment but creating a system where the platform monitored compliance and willingness to work. When a rider's score dipped below a threshold, access to shifts was mechanically denied—no human review, no recourse. The tribunal found this system incompatible with freelance autonomy. Deliveroo officially discontinued Frank in late 2020, but the underlying question persisted: how is algorithmic control different from managerial control?

The answer, which the Milan investigation solidifies, is that it fundamentally isn't. Hetero-organization—the external structuring of work through algorithmic decision-making—satisfies every element of Italian labor subordination law. The fact that a computer makes scheduling decisions does not erase the subordination.

Privacy Violations and Pattern of Abuse

This investigation occurs against a backdrop of Deliveroo's prior brush with Italian regulators. In 2023, the Garante per la Protezione dei Dati (Italy's Data Protection Authority) fined Deliveroo €2.5M for illegally processing personal data of approximately 8,000 riders. The violations centered on algorithmic transparency: Deliveroo failed to adequately disclose how its order-assignment algorithms functioned, and riders had no mechanism to request human review or correction.

The Garante's investigation revealed that Deliveroo was collecting geolocation data far beyond what was necessary for order fulfillment. Together with the Bologna Tribunal's discrimination ruling, these precedents establish a pattern: Deliveroo uses technology to exert control while minimizing transparency, a dynamic prosecutors now argue forms the infrastructure of exploitation.

The Supply Chain Question

The investigation raises questions about ecosystem participants who benefit from platform labor practices. Italian supply chain responsibility laws impose liability on businesses that knowingly contract with vendors engaging in illegal labor practices. Prosecutors are expected to examine whether major restaurant chains and merchants understood the wage levels being paid to riders delivering for them.

For independent restaurants and merchants relying on Deliveroo, this creates a reputational consideration. Association with a company under criminal investigation for wage theft can damage brand credibility, particularly among consumers sensitive to labor justice.

The Judicial Administrator's Powers and Timeline

The judicial administrator is empowered to operate for up to 12 months, though the court can extend this period. Their mandate includes:

• Immediate compliance audit: Review all contracts, payroll systems, and algorithmic decision-making protocols.

• Worker determination: Assess each rider's status (autonomous, subordinate, or hetero-organized collaborator) based on actual working conditions.

• Retroactive adjustment: Calculate back pay where wages fell below applicable collective bargaining minimums.

• Operational restructuring: Impose modifications to platform functioning to ensure compliance with labor law.

If the administrator determines riders are subordinate employees—a conclusion the available evidence makes highly likely—Deliveroo must apply the CCNL della Logistica, which guarantees hourly minimums of €7.50-10 depending on seniority, plus mandated benefits including paid sick leave, vacation days, accident insurance, and pension contributions.

The financial impact on Deliveroo could be substantial. Analysts estimate that converting riders to employees increases platform labor costs by 40-60%. For a company operating on thin margins, this creates strategic pressure: absorb the costs, exit the market, raise consumer prices, or reduce service coverage in less profitable areas.

What This Means for Riders: Practical Consequences and Action Steps

For riders currently working for Deliveroo or Glovo, the judicial supervision order creates simultaneous uncertainty and opportunity.

What riders should do now:

• Document everything: Preserve all evidence of work performed—shift records, payment screenshots, platform communications, any evidence of algorithm-based penalties or denied access. This documentation becomes critical in back-pay claims.

• Seek legal support: Organizations including NIdiL Cgil, USB (Unione Sindacale di Base), and Filcams Cgil are actively supporting riders through the process. Contact details are available through these confederations' regional offices. Multiple class-action cases are already filed and significantly strengthened by the judicial supervision order.

Immediate implications (0-3 months):

• Employment freeze: The administrator typically freezes hiring and major operational changes pending compliance review. This means current riders are less likely to face sudden deactivation while their status is being determined.

Medium-term timeline (3-12 months):

• Salary increases: If reclassified as subordinate employees, riders shift from per-delivery compensation to hourly rates, a shift that could double or triple current earnings for many.

• Scheduled work patterns: Rather than algorithmic allocation, riders receive assigned shifts, reducing precarity and enabling genuine planning of work and personal life.

• Benefits activation: Paid leave, accident coverage, and pension contributions flow from employer responsibility, not rider choice.

Back-pay potential: The judicial process will likely determine a lookback period—possibly 2-3 years—during which Deliveroo's underpayment occurred. Riders could receive lump-sum settlements covering the difference between what they were paid and what collective bargaining minimums would have required.

The Broader Gig Workforce: 30,000+ Riders in Limbo

Italy's food-delivery ecosystem employs somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000+ riders, depending on the source and seasonal variation. Deliveroo and Glovo represent perhaps 60-70% of this workforce, meaning the judicial supervision orders touch a significant portion of Italy's entire gig-delivery labor pool.

The remaining platforms—particularly Uber Eats and smaller regional services—now face pronounced scrutiny. Legal precedent flowing from the Deliveroo and Glovo cases will likely apply to them. Union pressure is also mounting: Filcams Cgil, Uiltucs, and USB have all called for sector-wide application of collective bargaining agreements, explicitly rejecting the contract signed between Assodelivery (the platform industry association) and UGL, a smaller union with fewer members in the delivery sector.

Just Eat stands as the only major platform to have voluntarily adopted employee status for portions of its Italian rider workforce, applying full logistics CCNL protections. The company made this decision following labor unrest and calculated that employee status would reduce legal exposure while improving brand reputation. Just Eat reports that employees deliver faster, maintain higher customer ratings, and generate fewer complaints than platforms relying on cheaper, precarious labor.

This model now anchors union arguments: sustainable, rights-respecting delivery is economically viable. The Deliveroo and Glovo cases will determine whether judicial enforcement can accelerate adoption sector-wide.

EU Directive 2024/2831: The December 2026 Deadline

By December 2, 2026—approximately nine months from the time of this article in February 2026—Italy must transpose EU Directive 2024/2831 into national law. The directive establishes that working conditions, not contractual labels, determine employment classification. This is the "primacy of facts" principle: if a platform controls when, where, and how work is performed, the relationship is subordinate employment regardless of what the contract calls it.

Italy's Ministry of Labor pre-emptively issued Circular 9/2025, clarifying the framework: riders fall into one of three categories. The most protective category applies to riders working under algorithmic direction—they are treated as subordinate employees with full protections. The circular effectively declares that platforms cannot shield themselves behind "autonomous contractor" agreements if they exercise managerial control.

The December deadline is firm and enforced through EU compliance mechanisms. Italy's implementation will likely be among the strictest in Europe, given the combination of judicial activism, strong union presence, and constitutional protections for worker dignity.

Union Response: Unified Pressure for Standards

Italy's major labor confederations responded to the judicial supervision orders with unusual unity. Filcams Cgil called the platform delivery model constituting exploitation of workers, emphasizing that thousands of largely migrant workers were trapped in indefensible conditions. The confederation demanded immediate application of national collective bargaining agreements and rejection of the UGL contract, which it characterized as inadequate.

Cgil Nazionale and NIdiL Cgil stated that the magistrates' action aligns with years of union denunciation. They reiterated that riders are not autonomous workers and should be covered by subordinate employment protections. The federation emphasized that contracts compensating only delivery time—excluding wait time—while externalizing all business risk onto workers, cannot be sustained.

Uiltucs demanded that Assodelivery immediately reopen negotiations, applying national standards rather than platform-specific agreements. The confederation sees the judicial intervention as validation of years of advocacy and an opportunity to force genuine labor standards sector-wide.

USB noted that judicial enforcement now places financial pressure on platforms previously content to budget for lawsuits as a cost of business. The union emphasized that the intervention represents a critical shift in regulatory will and continues to demand that riders be hired as subordinate employees under the logistics CCNL.

UGL's position stands isolated. The union defended its Assodelivery agreement, but this defense resonates weakly amid judicial findings that the platforms' practices constitute criminal exploitation.

Consumer and Business Implications

For Italian consumers accustomed to cheap, rapid food delivery, the regulatory shift carries practical consequences.

Short-term disruptions (0-3 months):

• Service reductions: Platforms may restrict coverage in less profitable peripheral areas to manage costs.

• Delivery delays: With riders working scheduled shifts rather than pursuing maximum hours through algorithmic incentives, speed may decline.

• Price increases: Expect €1-3 upward pressure on per-order fees as platforms pass along labor cost increases.

Medium-term stabilization (3-12 months):

• Service rationalization: Platforms consolidate routes and coverage areas, potentially improving efficiency despite higher per-rider costs.

• Price normalization: Consumer prices settle at levels reflecting true labor costs, ending the subsidy structure that paid for cheap delivery through rider wage theft.

For businesses relying on Deliveroo—particularly independent restaurants—the regulatory environment is shifting. Some restaurants have begun publicly distancing themselves from platforms or seeking alternative delivery models.

The Road Ahead: Enforcement and Evolution

The judicial supervision of Deliveroo and Glovo represents Italy's most aggressive regulatory action against platform labor exploitation to date. It is not, however, an isolated intervention. Similar investigations are underway in Bologna, Turin, and Rome, examining logistics companies, fashion subcontractors, and domestic service platforms.

Italy's judiciary has increasingly applied traditional labor law to digital platforms, rejecting arguments that technology creates exemptions from labor protections. This jurisprudential shift reflects a deliberate judicial determination that worker rights are not negotiable in the algorithm age.

For Deliveroo specifically, the company now operates under criminal investigation and intensive judicial oversight simultaneously. Strategic decisions remain uncertain. The company may pursue defensive arguments regarding worker preferences or business sustainability, but similar defenses have failed in previous Italian cases.

The broader question is whether this intervention marks genuine regulatory evolution or a momentary enforcement spike. The answer depends on sustained pressure from magistrates, unions, and the EU directive's December implementation. If Italy's labor authorities truly commit to enforcing the "primacy of facts" principle and implementing the directive robustly, platform labor in Italy will structurally transform.

For the 20,000+ riders currently under judicial scrutiny at Deliveroo and Glovo, the next 6-12 months will determine whether judicial intervention translates into material improvement in wages, security, and dignity. The legal machinery has been set in motion; the human outcomes remain to be written.