![\"inwood-snow-northern-manhattan-2021-feb-sdevries-6\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/inwood-snow-northern-manhattan-2021-feb-sdevries-6-scaled.jpg\" "\\"Delivery")
\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
A DoorDash delvieryperson driving in Inwood. (Photo by Susan De Vries)<\/p>\n
Delivery apps DoorDash and Uber failed to get a federal judge to strike down two local laws that govern tipping on their platforms, set to take effect Monday, while a separate challenge from Instacart focusing on the city\u2019s minimum wage law flopped in the same Manhattan court.\u00a0<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York on Friday denied the companies\u2019 motion for a preliminary injunction of Local Laws 107 and 108, which, respectively, require platforms to prompt customers with the option to pay at least a 10% tip<\/a>, and to do so before or at the same time that a customer places an order.\u00a0<\/p>\n The companies didn\u2019t make a plausible case that the laws, which were enacted in August 2025, infringe upon their First Amendment rights, Daniels found.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe government may regulate conduct even where that conduct has expressive components. To the extent the contested regulations implicate speech more than incidentally, however, plaintiffs have not at a minimum shown a likelihood of success on the proposition that the tipping laws compel non-commercial speech subject to strict scrutiny,\u201d he wrote in the 13-page order<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Neither did the plaintiffs establish irreparable harm, Daniels said, dashing an argument that customers may succumb to \u201ctipping fatigue.\u201d\u00a0\n<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs concede that tipping delivery workers is not a new development in their industry,\u201d Daniels wrote. \u201cThe tipping laws, therefore, are not likely to contribute to the fatigue and consequent alleged loss of reputation and goodwill.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n DoorDash Inc. is represented by the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, while Hecker Fink LLP represents Uber Technologies Inc. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately return requests for comment.\u00a0<\/p>\n The commissioner of the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, Samuel Levine<\/a>, said in a press statement that the ruling \u201caffirms that multi-billion-dollar companies need to comply with laws that protect workers and consumers.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n It was after the city passed minimum wage laws for delivery workers in December 2023 that companies like DoorDash and Uber changed their platforms to prompt customers to leave a tip after their order was already complete, instead of before checkout.\u00a0<\/p>\n That shift meant workers lost out on $554 million in tips over the next year and a quarter, according to studies by the city\u2019s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThose days are over,\u201d Levine said. \u201cWe look forward to enforcing Local Laws 107 and 108 to ensure that workers get paid, and consumers have the option to tip freely.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The rules are set to go into effect on Monday.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n In a separate ruling Friday by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl, Instacart\u2019s parent company, lost its own challenge to local delivery worker wage laws. The plaintiff, Maplebear Inc., wanted to block five local laws, including the tipping laws and the minimum wage law, as being preempted by federal and state law, and also in violation of the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0<\/p>\n Koetl nixed the challenge in a 35-page order.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n