Today, Instacart joined a group of companies in filing a legal challenge to New York City’s Local Law 34, which imposes harmful new rules for how app-based delivery platforms must handle deactivations.
We want to be direct about why we filed this lawsuit, particularly with the shoppers who earn on Instacart across the five boroughs. At its core this lawsuit is about preserving trust and safety on our platform.
The City’s new rules will make it harder for Instacart to enforce standards that protect against unsafe conduct, harassment, theft, fraud, and misuse of customer information. It could also force us to restore accounts removed years ago for those reasons, which could mean more fraudsters on the platform and less opportunities for those doing the right thing. That would put shoppers, customers, and retail partners at risk and undermine the trust our platform depends on.
We’re going to court to protect that trust — and to protect the New Yorkers who count on Instacart.
Safety Comes First
Every day, New Yorkers trust Instacart shoppers to pick their groceries with care and bring them to their doors. For many families, including seniors, people with disabilities, and parents juggling work and kids, Instacart provides a vital service.
That trust is the essential ingredient in every order. Customers keep ordering when they feel safe. Retailers keep partnering with us when they know orders are handled securely. And when customers and retailers lean on us, that creates more earnings opportunities for Instacart shoppers.
When someone commits fraud, threatens a customer, or puts others in their community at risk, we need to be able to act quickly and decisively. Acting fast on clear, credible safety and fraud concerns doesn’t work against shoppers — it’s how we protect them. It’s how we make sure our platform continues to provide opportunities to the overwhelming majority of shoppers who work hard and play by the rules every day.
When a few bad actors go unchecked, it erodes the trust shoppers, customers, and retail partners place in our platform — and puts the opportunities that depend on that trust at risk.
What Shoppers Can Count On
We know deactivations can be a real source of frustration and stress. Losing access to the platform without a clear explanation can be upsetting, and we hear that feedback. We want our process to be as clear and fair as possible.
Here’s what every shopper can count on today — with or without this law:
Clear guidelines on what conduct leads to deactivation
The specific reason for any deactivation
The opportunity, timeline, and process to appeal
Final deactivation decisions are always reviewed by a human
If a shopper ever believes a decision was a mistake, they can request an appeal.
Where Local Law 34 Goes Too Far
We support a fair process for shoppers. Unfortunately, LL34 will weaken the tools that keep the platform safe for everyone who uses it. Specifically, the law:
Delays removal of accounts that post safety risks. The law generally requires progressive discipline unless misconduct meets the City’s demanding, circumstance-dependent standard. That could prevent us from permanently removing an account when we reasonably believe continued access poses an unacceptable safety risk.
Requires us to reopen decisions made years ago. Those decisions were made under rules that were fair and designed to protect people, including cases where someone was removed for fraud or safety reasons.
Could require us to disclose sensitive information. That includes details that could put customers at risk or reveal how we detect fraud, making it easier for bad actors to avoid detection and harder to protect the shoppers who do the right thing.
We did not take this step lightly. Since this bill was first introduced, we have worked in good faith to help lawmakers understand its flaws, and we offered practical alternatives that would address their concerns without compromising safety.
After the law passed, we turned to the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection for clarity on how it would work in practice. We sent repeated emails and submitted more than 50 specific questions about how the rules would be interpreted and enforced. We never received a response to any of them.
A Shared Concern — and a Path Forward
We’re not alone in raising these concerns, which is why we are challenging the law jointly with other companies.
Just recently, in July, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Woods preliminarily blocked enforcement of New York City’s deactivation law for rideshare drivers (Local Law 52) because of its potential harms and constitutional faults. LL34, which is substantially similar to LL52, raises similar concerns, and we’re asking the court to take a close look.
We want deactivations to be fair and transparent, and we want to protect the safety and security of our platform. For more than a decade, New Yorkers have trusted Instacart to deliver. We don’t take that trust lightly — and we’re standing up to protect it because we want shoppers, customers, and retailers alike to have confidence in our platform for years to come.
