Mamdani Pledges to Keep Pressing Delivery Apps Like Uber Eats, DoorDash

Zohran Mamdani, the New York State Assembly member representing parts of Queens, has made clear he is not backing down from his high-profile confrontation with the delivery app industry. In remarks made during a community forum on Monday, Mamdani hinted strongly that his next legislative push will focus on reining in the practices of Uber Eats, DoorDash, and similar platforms. The comments come at a critical moment: New York City’s first-in-the-nation minimum wage rule for app-based delivery workers is currently mired in litigation, and the companies are pressing to overturn it.

A Long-Running Fight

Mamdani has been one of the loudest political voices in New York demanding accountability from delivery platforms. Since taking office, he has introduced and championed bills aimed at capping the fees apps charge restaurants, forcing greater transparency around tipping, and ensuring workers are compensated for the full time they spend online. His activism predates the city’s 2023 wage rule, which set a minimum pay rate of roughly $17.96 per hour for delivery workers, later adjusted to $19.56 per hour. Mamdani was instrumental in pressuring the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection to move forward with the rule after a long period of study and community testimony.

At the event, Mamdani said the presence of delivery couriers on the streets of New York is a visible reminder of a broken labor model. “These workers are being paid by the algorithm, not by a human being,” he said. “The apps have designed systems that maximize the number of deliveries and minimize the payment to the person doing the work. We have to shift that balance.” He did not offer a specific bill number, but aides later said he is exploring new requirements around data sharing and worker reclassification.

The delivery app industry has fiercely resisted such moves, arguing that its business model depends on the flexibility independent contractors enjoy. DoorDash and Uber Eats have said that mandates like a minimum wage law could lead to higher consumer fees or reduced earnings for drivers if companies are forced to cut the number of active workers. They also argue that statewide rules would be preferable to a patchwork of municipal regulations. But Mamdani insists that city and state governments have a duty to intervene where the market has failed.

The New York Context

New York City is a testing ground for gig economy regulation. The minimum wage rule that took effect in late 2023 was the product of a 2020 law signed by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio. It requires apps to pay couriers at least the city’s minimum wage for the time they spend on delivery tasks, excluding periods when the courier is offline. The rule was specifically designed to address the fact that many couriers earn far below minimum wage after expenses. According to a report from the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, the median delivery worker earned just $11.12 per hour in 2021, before accounting for costs such as a bike, a phone, and insurance.

The apps immediately sued to block the rule, claiming that the city underestimated the costs of doing business and that the calculation method was flawed. A State Supreme Court judge initially ruled in favor of the city, but an appellate court later found that the city had failed to account for a key legal factor — the rate at which couriers accept jobs. That ruling has sent the case back for further review. For Mamdani, the ongoing litigation is a reason to double down on legislative action. “We cannot wait for one court case to determine the fate of an entire workforce,” he said.

His comments have also drawn attention to the broader nationwide movement. In recent years, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, and California have attempted different approaches to gig worker protections. But New York’s law is considered among the strongest because it directly sets a wage floor rather than merely offering benefits or data protections. Mamdani’s continued advocacy could inspire other cities to follow New York’s lead — or, conversely, provide a cautionary tale if the court system ultimately strikes down the rule.

The Assembly member also criticized the apps for what he called a “grinding” approach to labor relations. He pointed to the companies’ use of arbitration clauses, deactivation practices, and opaque delivery-routing algorithms. He has argued that workers should have the right to know the full details of how they are assigned orders and what criteria are used to promote or penalize them. Such transparency measures would be a core part of any new bill he proposes, according to his office.

Industry Pushback

DoorDash and Uber Eats have pushed back on the narrative that their workers are poorly paid. In public statements, both companies have highlighted that most of their New York couriers work fewer than 20 hours per week and value the flexibility to set their own schedules. Uber Eats, in particular, has noted that the city’s own data shows that couriers see earnings well above the minimum wage when tipped income is included. The company has said it supports a fair hourly floor but objects to the city’s methods, which treat the time a courier spends waiting between orders as compensable work.

DoorDash has gone further, sponsoring its own research that suggests mandatory minimum wages could reduce the number of available delivery shifts and lead to fewer workers being able to earn at all. The company has also argued that higher fees on consumers would reduce demand for deliveries, thereby cutting into potential earnings. These arguments have resonated with some small business owners, who say they are already struggling with the high commissions charged by apps. A cap on fees, they argue, would help, but a wage rule that forces apps to charge more could drive more customers to large chain restaurants that can absorb the cost.

Legal experts say the dispute hinges on the definition of “hours worked” in the gig economy context. Under traditional labor law, hours worked includes time when an employee is “suffered or permitted to work,” which can include waiting time. But the apps categorize couriers as independent contractors, where such protections do not automatically apply. The city’s rule essentially creates a contractor minimum wage, a legal novelty that courts have yet to fully resolve. The case is now before the state Appellate Division, and a decision is expected later this year.

Economic Stakes

The stakes are enormous. Thousands of couriers in New York City rely on delivery work as their primary source of income, and many are immigrants who face language barriers and limited job opportunities. A 2022 survey by Cornell University found that nearly 70% of delivery workers in New York City were foreign-born, and 85% had no health insurance through the apps. They are also disproportionately people of color. Advocates argue that the apps have constructed a workforce that is deliberately separated from the protections of standard employment law.

For the app companies, the potential cost is also significant. Analysts estimate that Uber Eats and DoorDash spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on lobbyists and legal challenges across the country. If New York’s rule stands, it could lead to similar mandates in other major cities — eventually forcing a fundamental change to how the platforms value labor. The companies have said such changes would make their service more expensive and less competitive, potentially undermining the very convenience that created the boom in food delivery.

Mamdani, however, argues that the business model is not sustainable unless workers are paid fairly. He noted that the public has seen the moral cost of the current system: couriers forced to work in dangerous conditions, exposed to traffic, weather, and injury without basic protections. During the height of the pandemic, delivery workers were deemed essential but were treated as disposable. “The food arrives at your door, but the rider who brought it has to keep riding to make enough for a bus ride home,” he said.

What Happens Next

Mamdani is expected to introduce new legislation in the upcoming session of the New York State Assembly. Aides say the bill will likely focus on two main areas: requiring apps to disclose the minimum guaranteed earnings per shift, and prohibiting the platforms from deactivating a courier without clear written justification. The first provision would make it easier for workers to hold the apps accountable for wage theft, while the second would curb what worker advocates describe as arbitrary terminations.

The Assembly member also hinted that he may seek to extend a temporary tax break for cooperatively owned delivery services, such as the worker-owned cooperative that was launched in Brooklyn in 2023. He noted that when workers control the app, they earn three times what they earn under major platforms for the same number of deliveries. That experiment, he argued, shows that the technology is not the problem. The problem is who owns it and who decides how the value is distributed.

The coming months will be busy for all sides. The court case is pending, and a decision against the city would not necessarily kill the wage rule — it would send it back to the city for recalculation, which would delay enforcement. Meanwhile, the City Council is considering a separate bill that would make it easier for delivery workers to organize collectively, even though they are technically independent contractors. Mamdani has said he supports that effort.

For now, his speech was a signal that the issue will remain a central part of his political identity. “We have a choice: we can accept the reality that the apps have created, or we can shape a new reality,” he said. “I am not accepting the given. That is what this fight is about.” His next step will be to translate those words into legislation — a move that will test the limits of state power over the gig economy.