Platform Economy: Subcontractor Ban for Food Delivery Services

Federal Minister of Labor Bärbel Bas is considering a ban on subcontractors for food delivery services and announces stricter regulations for the sector.

The Problem

According to a recently published investigation by rbb, Federal Minister of Labor Bärbel Bas (Social Democratic Party of Germany – SPD) has announced that an obligation for direct employment in the sector will be examined. The investigation, which appears to have been decisive, highlights allegedly serious abuse in the food delivery service sector. Particularly criticized is the lack of transparency in the sector, which is said to enable systematic disadvantages for delivery riders by circumventing applicable laws.

Direct Employment Requirement as a Solution?

The idea of a direct employment requirement in the sector is not new and has been discussed repeatedly for years. Only in November 2025 did the Ministers of Labor and Social Affairs of the federal states speak out in favor of such a requirement.

The idea behind it is as follows: Platforms would be required to directly hire delivery riders as employees, granting them all employee protection rights. At the same time, platforms would no longer be able to operate with subcontractors in this segment. The intention is to prevent possible systematic disadvantages. According to the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS), this would be the only way to create greater transparency and better protect delivery riders.

Legal Assessment

However, the introduction of such a direct employment requirement (or subcontractor ban) is subject to high constitutional and European legal requirements. The use of subcontractors or temporary workers is fundamentally legitimate, which is why BMAS notes in a statement that a direct employment requirement can only ever be a last resort.

Such a measure touches upon several constitutional rights:

• The associated practical ban on the use of subcontractors deeply infringes on entrepreneurial freedom and the right to choose one's own business model. Legislators would have to prove that a total ban is the mildest possible means and that no other, equally effective measure is available to ensure better legal protection for drivers. In addition, it must be demonstrated that such protection is actually necessary. The rbb investigation alone is unlikely to be sufficient as evidence.
• European law must also be considered. Freedom to provide services is guaranteed under European law and includes the right of entrepreneurs to offer their services freely within the EU internal market. A German ban on subcontracting could be an unjustified national restriction of this right. Here, too, questions will arise regarding necessity and possible milder, equally effective measures. The German legislature would have to argue, for example, why stricter controls or higher fines would not be similarly effective or why the already extensive control options by authorities are not being used.

Implementation in Other Sectors

So far in Germany, the idea of a direct employment requirement has only been implemented in the meat industry. A relevant law came into force on January 1, 2021, and prohibits cooperation with self-employed workers and the use of temporary workers in meat companies with at least 50 employees. However, in considering whether this law serves as a blueprint for the current initiative, one must not ignore the context of the direct employment requirement in the meat industry. Its entry into force coincided with the corona pandemic and was a response to high incidences, especially among employees of a few meat companies. Possible bans on subcontractors had already been discussed years earlier but were only implemented under the pressure of the pandemic.

Such legislative interventions have also been discussed in the parcel delivery service industry for years. In 2023, the Federal Council (Bundesrat) also called for a subcontractor ban in this sector, which failed in 2024. Instead, further and tightened control obligations were introduced. Even back then, there was significant resistance from the business sector to a possible total ban, with many business associations arguing that existing laws and control mechanisms were already sufficient.

No Reaction Required Due to Implementation of Platform Work Directive?

It is questionable whether a direct employment requirement is needed at all, or if the law implementing the Directive on Improving Working Conditions in Platform Work (Directive 2024/2831) already sufficiently addresses the allegedly serious issues.

We have already reported on the Directive and its implementation at this point and already stated last year that there is a considerable need for implementation in German law, since it does not currently provide for a legal presumption of an employment relationship when "facts indicating control and management [of the platform worker by the platform] are established".

As a reminder: According to the Directive, a full employment relationship between the platform and the platform worker should arise if such facts can be established. This requirement of the Directive must be transposed into German law.

Platform work is also an integral part of the food delivery sector. Currently, the large companies only employ a very small number of delivery couriers as employees. The providers offer the platforms, and the couriers accept the proposed jobs.

This business model therefore falls exactly within the scope of the Platform Directive. As previously reported, Germany was involved in softening the Directive and decided not to include the originally intended fixed catalogue of criteria regarding the presumption of an employment relationship.

If the BMAS now states that a direct employment requirement could be the only way to enhance worker protection in the sector, this already reveals that—with the active participation of the governing coalition ("Ampel")—the softened Directive will be implemented toothlessly into German law. Because otherwise, why would an accompanying direct employment requirement be implemented?

Impact on Practice

For practice, such communications from BMAS mean above all: uncertainty.

Companies that legally use subcontractors and temporary workers are unsettled by such statements, and this creates additional investment risk.

Key drivers of growth in the delivery sector are investors, so even publicly communicated ideas can have negative economic effects for companies.

From a labor law perspective, it should be noted that more and more sector-specific special laws are leading to greater fragmentation of labor law, with the result that rules for employers and investors are becoming increasingly confusing and thus more unfriendly to business founders.

Before total bans are publicly discussed, it would be preferable to first evaluate less intrusive measures that consider the interests of both sides, such as advancing the implementation of the Platform Work Directive.

Whether a total ban will be implemented from a legal perspective – and especially under the current coalition – remains very questionable at this point.

Companies and investors should monitor developments closely. We will keep you updated.

***

Our legal tech solution "Contractor Compliance Check" assists companies with the assignment and use of external personnel. The tool integrates all necessary processes for efficient and legally compliant procurement of external personnel on a single platform. For more information, please visit our website.