Court of Turin

A rider managed by an algorithm must be classified as an employee

Not only that: the judges also reiterated that cycle couriers must be paid for waiting time as well

by Giampiero Falasca

11 September 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

The report of the rider must be classified as employment when the autonomy formally recognised for the worker is, in the practical execution of the working relationship, conditioned by the mechanisms of the platform and by the algorithm, if these mechanisms affect the availability of work and the manner in which the work is carried out.

This is the principle established by the Turin Labour Court in its judgement No. 3844 of 8 September 2026. This judgement is not an isolated case, but forms part of a very convoluted process: that of the classification of work carried out via platforms (an issue also addressed by the 1 May Decree and the draft implementation scheme for the EU directive, currently being prepared).

The story

The dispute concerned a delivery rider who had worked for several months under contracts formally classified as ‘services’ pursuant to Article 2222 of the Civil Code. The work was carried out using his own bicycle and smartphone, whilst all delivery management was handled via the digital platform.

The worker could book the slots made available by the company and, once their shift had started, would receive the orders to be carried out via the app. To check in, they had to be in the delivery zone specified by the platform, keep their geolocation active and comply with certain technical requirements. The system also included an ‘excellence score’, calculated by the algorithm, which determined priority in accessing slots.

The judges’ stance

The Court considers that these elements, first and foremost, fulfil the requirements for ‘hetero-organised collaboration’ as set out in Article 2 of Legislative Decree 81/2015: the service provided is predominantly personal and ongoing, and the manner in which it is carried out is organised by the client via the platform.

The decision, however, goes a step further by recognising, irrespective of the application of the aforementioned Article 2, the existence of a genuine relationship of employment under Article 2094 of the Civil Code.

According to the judge, in the digital economy, subordination to managerial, organisational and disciplinary authority cannot be sought solely in the traditional instructions issued by a natural person. It is also necessary to examine the functioning of the algorithm through which the undertaking organises the provision of services and influences the worker’s behaviour.

From this perspective, the scoring system takes on particular significance. If refusing orders or reduced availability leads to a reduction in the score and, consequently, fewer opportunities to access the most convenient shifts, the rider’s freedom to choose whether or not to work cannot be regarded as fully effective, according to the Court; this would therefore constitute a modern manifestation of the employer’s managerial authority.

The evidence is also relevant. The employee had highlighted the impact of refusing orders on his score, referring also to the investigations carried out by the Data Protection Authority. The company, which had technical information on how the algorithm worked, had not provided a detailed explanation capable of refuting this account. In accordance with the principle of proximity of the evidence and Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this circumstance is taken into account for the purposes of classifying the employment relationship.

According to the judgement, the abstract possibility of not booking a slot or refusing a delivery is not decisive: in an organisation based on the availability of a number of interchangeable riders, the absence of an individual worker can be immediately absorbed by the algorithm without compromising the service . This interpretation runs counter to other rulings, including those of the Court of Cassation, which instead emphasise the right to refuse a delivery as an element of autonomy.

Loading...

Having established the existence of an employment relationship, the Court classified the permanent termination of the employment relationship as dismissal.