U.S. District Judge George Daniels denied a preliminary injunction sought by DoorDash and Uber Eats on Friday, allowing New York City's new tipping regulations for food delivery workers to take effect as scheduled. The companies had argued the rules violate their First, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights.
The regulations require food delivery apps to give users the option to tip delivery workers at checkout, rather than after they place or receive their orders, and set the default tip to a minimum of 10%. The new rules take effect Monday.
In his 13-page ruling, Daniels found that the regulations accomplish what the city set out to do — give consumers more transparency and protect delivery workers. The judge wrote that the changes "advance the city's goals of enhancing cost transparency at the time of checkout, restoring consumer choice, and providing protections to delivery workers."
The dispute centers on a significant change delivery apps made in December 2023, when they moved tip prompts from the front end of orders to the back end. According to the city, this change resulted in customers tipping their drivers $554 million less through the second quarter of 2025.
DoorDash and Uber Eats filed their joint lawsuit last month, claiming the city violated their constitutional rights by forcing them to comply with front-end tipping requirements. In a 49-page complaint filed Dec. 10, the companies argued they were being compelled to "speak a message they would not otherwise."
The apps contended that "even if plaintiffs attempt to comply with the tipping law (therein being compelled to speak), the imminent threat of enforcement still causes irreparable harm." They also argued the laws would worsen consumer "tipping fatigue," citing reports suggesting around nine in 10 Americans feel that tipping culture has gotten out of hand.
"Tipping in the United States is at a crossroads," DoorDash and Uber Eats claimed in their complaint. "What was once a discretionary courtesy intended to acknowledge exceptional service has morphed into an expectation."
Judge Daniels, a Bill Clinton appointee, rejected these arguments in Friday's ruling. He noted that the companies' allegations about suffering from loss of goodwill were "not conclusive," pointing out that the delivery apps continue to provide tipping prompts compliant with the tipping laws for orders outside New York City and for "self-delivery" orders fulfilled by merchants.
The ruling represents a victory for New York City officials and delivery worker advocates who have pushed for greater protections and transparency in the gig economy. The city has positioned these regulations as part of broader efforts to ensure fair compensation for delivery workers who have become essential to the urban economy, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic.
The timing of the law's implementation coincides with an incoming blizzard in New York City, potentially highlighting the importance of ensuring adequate compensation for delivery workers who brave difficult weather conditions.
While Daniels denied the preliminary injunction, his ruling does not end the legal challenge. The delivery apps could still theoretically prevail at trial if the case proceeds to that stage. However, for now, the companies must comply with the new tipping requirements while the litigation continues.
The decision reflects ongoing tensions between gig economy platforms and municipal governments seeking to regulate working conditions and compensation structures. New York City has been particularly active in this area, having previously implemented minimum wage requirements for app-based drivers and other gig workers.
The substantial financial impact cited by the city — $554 million in lost tips — underscores the significance of user interface design choices in the gig economy. The placement and default settings of tip prompts can have massive consequences for worker earnings, highlighting the power that platform companies wield over worker compensation through seemingly minor design decisions.
For delivery workers, the ruling means the return of upfront tipping prompts that advocates argue will restore fairer compensation. The 10% minimum default tip setting is designed to establish a baseline that ensures workers receive reasonable gratuities for their services.
The case also illustrates the broader debate over "tipping fatigue" in American consumer culture, with companies arguing that mandatory tip prompts contribute to consumer frustration with increasingly ubiquitous tipping expectations across various service industries.
As the regulations take effect Monday, both delivery companies and workers will be closely watching implementation and any potential appeals. The outcome could influence similar regulatory approaches in other major cities grappling with gig economy worker protection issues.