August 2025
Subordination Criteria Between Digital Food Delivery Platforms and Delivery Personnel: Analysis of the 113-Lao-Shang-2152 Civil Decision of the Taiwan Supreme Court
Article 2, Subparagraph 6 of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter, the “LSA”) defines a labor contract as an agreement that establishes an employment relationship with subordination to the employer. Service contracts exhibiting such subordination are deemed employment contracts under the Civil Code and labor contract under the LSA. However, whether the relationship between digital food delivery platform and delivery person is characterized by subordination and thus constitutes an employment relationship remains a key issue in labor law compliance for platform operators.
In June 2025, Taiwan's Supreme Court rendered the 113-Lao-Shang-2152 Civil Decision, finding that the relationship between the delivery platform and the delivery person is employment. This case's progression from first instance through final appeal demonstrates how subordination arises from platform business models and signals the judiciary’s evolving approach. The following sets out the background of the case and the reasoning of the decisions rendered at each instance.
1. Case Background
The plaintiff worked as a delivery person for the defendant from August 2019. The parties signed a piecework service contract without fixed hours or schedules. The plaintiff provided delivery vehicles and mobile phones for customer contact, bearing costs for maintenance, repairs, fuel, and phone charges. The plaintiff claimed an employment relationship existed and filed a declaratory suit with the Taipei District Court.
2. Court Decisions
(1) The 110-Lao-Su-377 Civil Decision of the Taiwan Taipei District Court: Not an Employment Relationship
Following Judicial Interpretation No. 740, the Taiwan Taipei District Court held that the plaintiff was free to decide working hours, whether to accept delivery orders, and the area of service. The plaintiff also had to bear the costs of the delivery vehicle and mobile phone usage. The defendant, moreover, did not impose rules on leave or intervene in how the services were provided. Accordingly, the court determined that the plaintiff assumed business risks and worked for his own remuneration, without subordination in terms of personality, organization, and economics, and therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
(2) The 112-Lao-Shang-377 Civil Decision of the Taiwan High Court: Employment Relationship Recognized
The High Court reversed, citing 113-Tai-Shang-343 Civil Decision of Supreme Court. It found defendant's detailed delivery procedures and conduct rules regulated plaintiff's work with evaluative and disciplinary effects. Defendant's compensation and incentive structure—including order acceptance rates, use of official equipment (insulated bags, helmets, uniforms), and customer ratings—influenced plaintiff's behavior with indirect coercive force. By joining the defendant’s app-based system, the plaintiff became functionally integrated into the delivery team. Therefore, the High Court found subordination in personality, economics and organization, establishing an employment relationship.
(3) The 113-Lao-Shang-2152 Civil Decision of the Supreme Court: Employment Relationship Affirmed
The Supreme Court ruled that subordination does not require absolute dependence but is assessed by the degree of employer control in each case. Under digital economic models, whether delivery personnel-platform relationships constitute employment relationship should be determined by subordination levels. The plaintiff had to log into defendant's app to receive work assignments and strictly follow defendant's delivery procedures, incorporating the plaintiff into the defendant’s production system. Plaintiff provided delivery services for defendant's business benefit and represented defendant's brand. Defendant could directly or indirectly control plaintiff's service delivery through rating systems, penalties (i.e., order suspension, service termination), and compensation conditions. The Supreme Court agreed with the Taiwan High Court, finding subordination from personality, economics and organization unaffected by plaintiff's ability to choose hours, refuse orders, or receive piece-rate pay.
3. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision, together with the Supreme Administrative Court’s 110-Shang-488 Administrative Decision, which recognized the existence of subordination between digital food delivery platforms and delivery person, reflects an emerging judicial consensus. Specifically, when a platform establishes standard operating procedures and disciplinary measures, incorporates delivery person into its system, and requires them to provide services for the platform’s business purposes, courts are likely to find the existence of an employment relationship based on subordination. How future courts further refine the criteria for determining subordination in the digital economy will directly affect platform operators’ compliance with labor regulations and thus deserves continued attention.
In June 2025, Taiwan's Supreme Court rendered the 113-Lao-Shang-2152 Civil Decision, finding that the relationship between the delivery platform and the delivery person is employment. This case's progression from first instance through final appeal demonstrates how subordination arises from platform business models and signals the judiciary’s evolving approach. The following sets out the background of the case and the reasoning of the decisions rendered at each instance.
1. Case Background
The plaintiff worked as a delivery person for the defendant from August 2019. The parties signed a piecework service contract without fixed hours or schedules. The plaintiff provided delivery vehicles and mobile phones for customer contact, bearing costs for maintenance, repairs, fuel, and phone charges. The plaintiff claimed an employment relationship existed and filed a declaratory suit with the Taipei District Court.
2. Court Decisions
(1) The 110-Lao-Su-377 Civil Decision of the Taiwan Taipei District Court: Not an Employment Relationship
Following Judicial Interpretation No. 740, the Taiwan Taipei District Court held that the plaintiff was free to decide working hours, whether to accept delivery orders, and the area of service. The plaintiff also had to bear the costs of the delivery vehicle and mobile phone usage. The defendant, moreover, did not impose rules on leave or intervene in how the services were provided. Accordingly, the court determined that the plaintiff assumed business risks and worked for his own remuneration, without subordination in terms of personality, organization, and economics, and therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
(2) The 112-Lao-Shang-377 Civil Decision of the Taiwan High Court: Employment Relationship Recognized
The High Court reversed, citing 113-Tai-Shang-343 Civil Decision of Supreme Court. It found defendant's detailed delivery procedures and conduct rules regulated plaintiff's work with evaluative and disciplinary effects. Defendant's compensation and incentive structure—including order acceptance rates, use of official equipment (insulated bags, helmets, uniforms), and customer ratings—influenced plaintiff's behavior with indirect coercive force. By joining the defendant’s app-based system, the plaintiff became functionally integrated into the delivery team. Therefore, the High Court found subordination in personality, economics and organization, establishing an employment relationship.
(3) The 113-Lao-Shang-2152 Civil Decision of the Supreme Court: Employment Relationship Affirmed
The Supreme Court ruled that subordination does not require absolute dependence but is assessed by the degree of employer control in each case. Under digital economic models, whether delivery personnel-platform relationships constitute employment relationship should be determined by subordination levels. The plaintiff had to log into defendant's app to receive work assignments and strictly follow defendant's delivery procedures, incorporating the plaintiff into the defendant’s production system. Plaintiff provided delivery services for defendant's business benefit and represented defendant's brand. Defendant could directly or indirectly control plaintiff's service delivery through rating systems, penalties (i.e., order suspension, service termination), and compensation conditions. The Supreme Court agreed with the Taiwan High Court, finding subordination from personality, economics and organization unaffected by plaintiff's ability to choose hours, refuse orders, or receive piece-rate pay.
3. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision, together with the Supreme Administrative Court’s 110-Shang-488 Administrative Decision, which recognized the existence of subordination between digital food delivery platforms and delivery person, reflects an emerging judicial consensus. Specifically, when a platform establishes standard operating procedures and disciplinary measures, incorporates delivery person into its system, and requires them to provide services for the platform’s business purposes, courts are likely to find the existence of an employment relationship based on subordination. How future courts further refine the criteria for determining subordination in the digital economy will directly affect platform operators’ compliance with labor regulations and thus deserves continued attention.
