Council hearing spotlights calls for deactivation protections for app-based delivery workers

New York City Council members heard extensive testimony at a Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection hearing on Intro 13-32, a bill that would limit "wrongful" deactivation of app-based delivery workers and create a formal appeals process.

The measure, sponsored by Council member Justin Bridle, would require platforms to publish deactivation policies, engage in progressive discipline and provide notice and appeal rights before permanently removing a worker’s ability to accept deliveries. Supporters framed the bill as a complement to the city’s minimum-pay rules for delivery workers; company representatives warned it could hamper fraud prevention and public-safety responses.

Why it matters: Delivery workers testified that sudden deactivations cut off their primary source of income and can cause immediate financial hardship. City staff told council members the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) has recorded hundreds of delivery-related complaints in recent years and that effective enforcement could require additional agency staffing and new procedures.

DCWP testimony and enforcement capacity A DCWP official told the committee that the agency lacks a dedicated complaint code for deactivation cases but conducted a manual review that turned up "upwards of 180 complaints" over the past two years related to deactivation. The official said deactivations are often presented to the agency as "financially devastating for workers," and noted that many complaints concern delays or other events outside a worker’s control.

The DCWP witness said the agency has included a fiscal-impact statement in the hearing record and estimated it would need "over 30 new lines" (additional staff positions) to run investigations and enforcement if the bill tasked DCWP with that role. The agency also described alternatives under consideration, including placing some enforcement cost on platforms through externally funded arbitration.

Worker testimony: appeals, notice and reinstatement Dozens of delivery workers and advocates urged the council to pass 13-32. "Deactivation is a form of firing workers without notice, without cause, and without appeal process," said Ligia Walpa of Workers Justice Project. Many speakers described automated denials and appeals that they said were decided by algorithms rather than people. "The algorithm decides our lives on the streets," said Antonio Solis of Los Deliveristas Unidos. "We are workers. That's why I'm asking City Council to guarantee deactivation protections and prioritize Intro 13-32." Several witnesses asked the council to add severance pay, mandatory human review of appeals, and a 15-day notice period before permanent deactivation.

Legal models and advocacy groups Legal and advocacy groups urged council members to adopt a model similar to other local laws and ordinances. Daniel Ocampo of the National Employment Law Project told the committee that Intro 13-32 "offers a proven solution," describing requirements for written policies, progressive discipline, a 14-day notice period for deactivations and a 120-day notice period for bona fide economic layoffs. The New York City Controller's office and labor organizations, including the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, also testified in support of the bill.

Platform concerns and safety Representatives from platforms and tech-affiliated groups urged caution. Freddie Goldstein, who oversees Uber's public policy in New York City, said the company supports "reasonable industry standards" but argued the bill should focus on permanent deactivations and avoid treating brief access restrictions as full deactivations. He told the committee that "so far in 2025, only 2% of delivery workers have faced a permanent deactivation in New York City monthly," and said some deactivations are linked to fraud and theft. Hope Ledford of Chamber of Progress said the bill, as drafted, risks unintended consequences including delaying urgent safety interventions and creating privacy risks if customer complaint data is broadly disclosed.

Points of contention Committee members pressed platforms on how GPS, routing and real-time conditions are used in deactivation decisions. Platform witnesses said GPS and internal review of routes are part of their investigations and that workers can submit photos, videos and written statements through in-app processes. Worker witnesses and advocates countered that many appeals are automated, slow or opaque; organizers said hundreds of cases they filed remained unresolved for months.

Clarifying details from the hearing - DCWP manual review: "upwards of 180 complaints" about deactivation in recent years. - DCWP estimate: more than 30 new staff lines could be needed for investigations if DCWP enforces deactivation rules. - Worker organizations reported hundreds of deactivations in recent months; organizers said Grubhub had agreed to reactivate some accounts in response to advocacy but that many appeals remained unresolved. - Advocates requested severance pay, human review of appeals, and a 15-day notice prior to permanent deactivation (advocates and legal witnesses cited 14 days in testimony for notice requirements).

What happens next Committee members asked DCWP and platform representatives for additional documentation on complaint volumes, the platforms' deactivation categories and examples of appeals that were reviewed and resolved. Several council members said they want specific data on how long appeal cases take and called for written examples of communications between platforms and workers.

The hearing record remains open for submitted written testimony; council staff said they will continue to work with the bill sponsor and stakeholders on amendments and drafting issues. Advocates urged rapid passage, while platform representatives requested narrow drafting to preserve tools used to prevent fraud and protect public safety.