A 20-year-old courier named Xiao Chi, working for an online supermarket, was injured in a traffic accident during a delivery less than two weeks into his job. Seeking to assert his rights, he found himself in an awkward position: he wore the work uniform, clocked in for shifts, and faced penalties for lateness or absence, yet his wages were paid by a different delivery contractor. This raised the critical question of who his actual employer was.

The online supermarket outsourced its delivery operations to a contractor and denied being Xiao Chi's employer, while the contractor, citing a part-time agreement signed with Xiao Chi, also refused to acknowledge an employment relationship. Left with no other option, Xiao Chi took both parties to court. The final ruling confirmed that the contractor had an employment relationship with Xiao Chi, while the online supermarket, as the ultimate beneficiary of his delivery labor, was not deemed the employer.

Xiao Chi's situation reflects a broader reality in the instant delivery industry's current labor practices. A recent study titled "Five-Year Tracking of Instant Delivery Platform Labor and Employment Relationship Recognition (2021-2026)," published by the Beijing Zhicheng Migrant Workers' Legal Aid and Research Center, analyzed public court documents involving rider labor disputes. The findings reveal that courts confirmed employment relationships in over 60% of cases, yet the employers identified were almost exclusively agents or contractors, leaving platform companies entirely outside the employment relationship and shifting labor risks down the chain.

This research examined 642 public court rulings on rider labor disputes from the past five years, covering all 31 provincial-level administrative regions in China. Among 360 cases involving disputes over employment relationship confirmation, 227 were found to have established such relationships. However, in these cases, the employers were identified as actual delivery contractors or city agents in approximately 96% of instances. In stark contrast, no major platform company was ever designated as the employer.

Luo Yihan, deputy director of the Beijing Zhicheng Migrant Workers' Legal Aid and Research Center, expressed regret that while over 60% of cases confirmed an employment relationship between riders and relevant entities, a significant limitation remains: the confirmed employers are still confined to the delivery contractors and agents at the very end of the labor chain. "These entities have limited compensation capacity, so even when workers win their cases, they often fail to secure effective relief. Meanwhile, the entities that benefit the most from riders' labor and hold the greatest practical control remain outside the employment relationship framework."

For riders seeking to defend their rights, a pressing question is who they should sue. Currently, the self-operated model among instant delivery platforms is declining, with outsourcing becoming the dominant approach. Major national brands like KFC, McDonald's, Luckin Coffee, and Sam's Club, to a certain extent, effectively tie riders to their physical stores through instant delivery platforms such as Fengniu Tongcheng. The report uses the delivery chain of these large national brands to illustrate the industry's current labor practices.

Large brand owners control order sources, in-store meal preparation scenarios, and service standard setting, but typically do not hire riders directly. Instant delivery platforms manage traffic entry points, order assignment, pricing, time limits, and performance assessments. City agents contract delivery services by region, handling recruitment, training, and station setup. Delivery contractors and sub-contractors sign agreements with riders, pay wages, and provide insurance. Station managers oversee daily operations like scheduling, leave requests, dispatch coordination, morning meetings, and complaint handling.

The entities that control orders, standards, and dispatch authority do not sign contracts with riders, while those who do sign contracts do not carry out daily management. Luo Yihan explained that employer functions such as command, supervision, discipline, and payroll are distributed across platforms, stations, and contracting entities, with no single party implementing all of them. "Often, riders wear uniforms but struggle to identify their actual employer. When facing multiple employing entities, riders who choose the wrong target in legal proceedings inevitably bear a heavier procedural burden and risk losing their case."

The core standard for determining an employment relationship is the existence of controlling labor management, such as whether riders must comply with work rules, algorithm protocols, and labor discipline, or accept unified scheduling, dispatch, and rewards or punishments, ultimately exhibiting subordination in personal, economic, and organizational dimensions.

Tong Lihua, director of the Beijing Zhicheng Migrants' Legal Aid and Research Center, noted that in the instant delivery industry, many gig riders do not rely on a single brand or platform. However, a considerable number of riders are deeply tied to one brand or platform, providing delivery services exclusively on a long-term basis while accepting order assignments, scheduling, and rewards or penalties. This constitutes de facto controlling labor management, and such cases should be recognized as establishing actual employment relationships.

Establishing an employment relationship is the gateway to all labor rights, including work injury compensation, social insurance, minimum wage, dismissal protection, working hours, and rest periods. Without it, corresponding labor protections fall through. Tong Lihua argued that when two or more entities jointly exercise controlling labor management over a worker, collectively organize labor, and share the benefits, they should be deemed to share a joint employment relationship with the worker, bearing joint and several liability externally. "Any entity that meets the conditions for an employment relationship should have one established," he said.

"We are not trying to pull all flexible gig riders into employment relationships, but rather to ensure that those who should have one are not excluded. The establishment of joint employment relationships would improve access to legal procedures, visibility of platform-related evidence, and availability of effective remedies for victims, preventing employing entities from shifting labor risks and evading responsibility through layered system designs."