Food delivery special law waited for 6 years! It will officially go into effect next week. For every trip, the minimum remuneration is 45 yuan—what’s the controversy?

Taiwan will roll out the delivery rider-specific law, the “Delivery Riders’ Rights Protection and Delivery Platforms Management Act,” which will officially take effect on July 21, 2026. The law incorporates into legislation requirements such as a minimum remuneration of 45 yuan per order, that stacked orders must be priced item-by-item, algorithm-based dispatch must be transparent, and platforms are required to carry insurance—forming a safety net for about 150k delivery riders nationwide. But it sidesteps the most hotly debated issue: whether delivery riders are “contractors” or “employees.” As a result, on the eve of the law taking effect, labor groups, platforms, and consumers are still pulling in different directions.
(Background: Grab announced a $150k acquisition of Taiwan’s foodpanda. Can Web3 wallets and crypto payments also move in?)
(Additional context: US delivery platform DoorDash teams up with payment public chain Tempo to explore using stablecoins for payroll and settlement)

Table of contents

Toggle

• “Contracting”
• The “base pay” of a delivery for 45 yuan
• Why some people still aren’t satisfied
• The delivery environment needs to change

Key takeaways

• Taiwan’s first delivery-specific law was passed in its third reading on January 6, 2026, and will take effect on July 21, covering about 150k delivery riders
• Minimum remuneration of 45 yuan per order, stacked orders priced per order, platforms required to carry group accident insurance and occupational injury insurance, and adjustments tied to the minimum wage
• The law preserves flexibility for “contracting” and “employment,” without forcing a determination that delivery riders are employees; labor groups worry about “making ‘contractor’ status legal on the spot”

At the start, we need to recall two fatal traffic accidents involving food delivery. During the Taiwan National Day holiday in October 2019, two delivery riders in Taiwan never made it home.

Late on October 10, a 29-year-old rider named Ma from foodpanda in Taoyuan collided with a small truck and was thrown to his death. That day was the second day after he started delivering.

Three days later, on October 13, a delivery rider surnamed Huang, in his early 20s, working for Uber Eats in the streets of Shilin was fatally struck by a car while on his way to finish his shift.

Two lives, separated by just three days.

On the Monday after the holiday ended, the Ministry of Labor moved quickly to determine that these two cases involved an “employment relationship.” Delivery riders should have the protections that workers are entitled to, and labor inspections were immediately launched, with fines issued to both platforms. The platforms responded just as quickly, saying they would cover follow-up compensation and assistance for the cases. But both companies reiterated the same point: their delivery riders are “contracting partners,” not “employee workers.”

This dispute first became visible to society at large, though those who cared might have mainly been within the delivery rider community. Six years later, on July 21, 2026, Taiwan’s first delivery-specific law will finally take effect. In between were six years and more than just the two lost lives.

“Contracting”

To understand why this law matters, you first need to know what’s different between “contracting” and “employment.” These two terms sound like textbook legal concepts, but for people who ride on the road every day, they make a real, tangible difference in protection—whether there is protection or not.

If it is “employment,” then you are a worker protected by the Labor Standards Act. The employer takes care of labor insurance for you, pays most of the premiums, you have a labor pension account, and you receive legally mandated occupational injury benefits. If something happens, an entire system is there to catch you. If it is “contracting,” then legally you are more like a small business owner who takes on gigs yourself—you have to handle everything. Labor insurance would require you to enroll through a union and pay most of the premiums yourself. There is no labor pension. For occupational injury, it depends on whether the platform purchased commercial insurance, and commercial insurance may refuse to pay.

Over the past decade-plus, almost all delivery platforms have classified delivery riders as “contracting partners.” In foodpanda’s contract, it is even spelled out in black and white: riders must agree to “not bring any claims related to employment arising from providing services to the company,” effectively blocking your ability to later argue that you are an employee.

The problem is that delivery riders’ situation is stuck in a very awkward gray area. If they are “contractors,” they can freely go online and freely refuse orders, like a contractor. But if they are “employees,” how each payment is calculated, whether they can receive prioritized dispatch, and under what circumstances accounts are suspended—all are controlled by the platform’s algorithms. They have the freedom of contractors, but not the bargaining power of contractors.

That is the delivery riders’ long-term real predicament: when something goes wrong, nobody wants to take full responsibility.

The “base pay” for a delivery trip of 45 yuan

The first thing the newly launched delivery-specific law does is draw several bottom-line boundaries that, in the past, had never existed for this work.

The most closely watched is remuneration. The law stipulates that the basic remuneration for each order may not be lower than 1.25 times the hourly wage converted proportionally during the delivery service period based on the minimum wage, and that there is also a guaranteed amount of at least 45 yuan per order. In the future, it will be adjusted together with the minimum wage. Remuneration must be paid in full directly, at least twice per month, and must include checkable details.

Next is “stacked orders,” which many people often ignore. In the past, platforms could dispatch multiple orders at once to the same delivery rider, but compress the unit price using a combined-order method. Under the new rules, each order is one pickup point and one delivery point. Even if multiple orders are dispatched at the same time, remuneration must be calculated per order; they can no longer dilute riders’ income by bundling orders.

Then there is the algorithm running behind the platform. The law requires that platforms lay out the mechanisms for dispatch and remuneration calculation, with information provided transparently. More importantly is account suspension. In the past, delivery riders were often “shut out” without warning, cutting off their livelihoods with nowhere to turn. The new law stipulates that if a platform is to suspend access, it must explain the reasons, bear the burden of proof, provide an opportunity to appeal, and establish an independent handling group that includes representatives from unions.

On the safety side, platforms must insure delivery riders with group accident insurance and liability insurance. They are not allowed to put orders online unless the coverage is in place. Platforms must also pay the premiums for delivery riders to participate in occupational accident insurance for workers. For the legal vacuum in those two incidents six years ago, there is finally a legal framework to fill it.

Putting all of this together, this law protects not only delivery riders. It also regulates platforms’ management responsibilities, ensures that merchants are not arbitrarily adjusted or have their accounting split, and lets consumers know whether the money they pay goes to where it should. This is Taiwan’s first time using a central-level special law to place delivery riders, platforms, merchants, and consumers under the same set of rules.

Why some people still aren’t satisfied

In theory, regulations for workers in a specific field should receive support when they take effect. But on the eve of implementation, nearly every side has complaints.

The deepest dissatisfaction still circles back to those two words: “contracting.” The special law chose a route that does not force a determination of whether delivery riders are contractors or employees. Instead, regardless of contract form, platforms must bear minimum guarantee responsibilities. Labor Minister Hong Shih-han’s position is that in the future, new-type platforms might hire delivery riders using employment arrangements, and the law should preserve flexibility to accommodate different relationships.

This compromise has pragmatic logic, but it also makes many labor groups worry: if protections can be provided within a contracting framework, then would platforms have less incentive to convert delivery riders into formal employees? In other words, this law might effectively legalize the contractor identity “on the spot,” giving delivery riders a safety net while still keeping them out in terms of full inclusion under the Labor Standards Act. Pension, severance pay, and a complete labor identity still remain out of reach.

Another loud point of contention is money. After the special law is passed, whether delivery fees will rise becomes consumers’ most direct anxiety. The Consumer Foundation for Taiwan said plainly that platforms are likely to pass the added costs of guaranteeing delivery riders onto consumers.

Uber also cited a study from the Fair Trade Commission warning that if delivery fees rise by 5%, then as many as 34% of people might simply stop ordering delivery, which would mean some delivery riders lose opportunities to get orders. Platform operators also do not hide the fact that costs will increase. They say a rise in delivery fees is “inevitable.”

More subtly, around the time before and after the law takes effect, rumors have already circulated that platforms plan to raise delivery fees by 30% and even charge delivery riders a “matching fee,” prompting unions to denounce it as “a bad look,” arguing that this is forcing costs back onto the party with the least bargaining power. Whether a law meant to protect delivery riders would instead become a reason for price hikes and cost shifting is the most realistic test it will face after implementation.

How much was the delivery fee the last time you ordered delivery? After July 21, that number may change. Who will pocket the extra money?

The delivery environment needs to change

Over these six years, delivery has long stopped being a fresh urban scenery and become an everyday service for the lives of tens of millions. People delivering meals sprint through the rain and traffic, press doorbells downstairs at your building, and have moved from the edge of the system into the system itself.

This special law cannot resolve everything at once. It passes through urgent checkpoints—remuneration, insurance, and algorithm transparency—but before the most fundamental line between contracting and employment, it chooses to go around first. It catches many who previously fell through, but it also leaves the same clearly identifiable gaps.

Common questions

When will the delivery-specific law take effect? What are the main protections?

The “Delivery Riders’ Rights Protection and Delivery Platforms Management Act” passed in its third reading on January 6, 2026, and will be formally implemented on July 21. Core protections include at least 45 yuan minimum remuneration per order, per-order pricing for stacked orders, transparent algorithm-based dispatch, mandatory group accident insurance and occupational injury insurance for platforms, and that account suspension must state reasons and provide an opportunity to appeal.

Will the delivery-specific law make delivery more expensive?

It might. Platforms cite compliance and rising insurance costs, saying delivery fee increases are “inevitable.” Market rumors at one point said delivery fees could rise by 30%. The Consumer Foundation for Taiwan worries about cost shifting to consumers, and Uber also cited a study warning that price increases could cause some people to stop ordering delivery; the real impact will depend on the market’s response after July 21.