According to engadget, Instacart has filed a lawsuit against New York City to block five new local laws set to take effect on January 26, 2025. The suit specifically challenges Local Law 124, which would require grocery delivery workers to be paid the same minimum wage as restaurant delivery workers. It also targets Local Law 107, mandating that customers be given a tipping option of at least 10 percent or a manual entry field. Instacart claims Congress has banned such local price regulation on platforms like theirs and argues the laws will force a harmful restructuring of its business. The company’s CEO, Chris Rogers, has an estimated net worth of at least $28.6 million.
The noble fight for fairness?
Here’s the thing: you can always tell a company’s real priorities by what they take to court. Instacart’s blog post frames this as a righteous stand for “fairness” and “independence” for workers, and even for affordable groceries. But let’s be real. This is a classic move. When a regulation threatens the bottom line, you dress up the fight in the language of protecting the very people you’re being asked to pay more. The lawsuit claims the laws will “harm shoppers” by restricting work access. It’s a convenient, and frankly predictable, argument. If paying people a livable wage destroys your business model, maybe the model was the problem.
The legal arguments and the stakes
Instacart’s legal claims are interesting. They’re leaning hard on the idea that states and cities can’t regulate them, pointing to federal preemption and constitutional protections against discriminating against out-of-state companies. It’s a bold strategy. Basically, they’re arguing they exist in a kind of regulatory gray zone that local governments can’t touch. The company’s filing warns of dire consequences: disrupted relationships with retailers and consumers, and “constitutional injuries.” But for whom? The constitutional injury seems to be to Instacart’s preferred way of operating, not necessarily to the public good. It’s a high-stakes gamble that could set a precedent for other cities looking to rein in gig work platforms.
A question of priorities
Now, consider the numbers mentioned. CEO Chris Rogers is worth an estimated $28.6 million. Former CEO and current board chair Fidji Simo is reportedly worth around $72.7 million. I’m not saying they should personally subsidize payroll, but it does put the company’s cries of potential catastrophe into perspective. When a corporation with that level of wealth at the top sues to avoid paying workers a mandated minimum, it sends a clear message about where value is allocated. The lawsuit alleges the city is overstepping. But maybe, just maybe, the city is trying to correct a market failure where the people doing the actual, physical work aren’t seeing a fair share. It’s a fight worth watching, because the outcome will tell us a lot about who holds the power in the modern economy.
