sujet de recherche

Ce projet porte sur la relation contractuelle entre DoorDash et les personnes qui effectuent les livraisons de nourriture à travers la plateforme de l'entreprise. Est-ce un contrat d'adhésion au sens de l'article 1379 C.c.Q. nonobstant des clauses stipulant le contraire?

Le contrat est très long, avec de nombreuses annexes, parfois illisibles et souvent incompréhensibles pour celui qui n'est pas juriste, avec des déséquilibres marqués de pouvoir.

Si le contrat est d'adhésion, les entrepreneurs pourront se pourvoir de la protection de la loi, à savoir des articles 1435 à 1437 C.c.Q., mais pas s'il en est autrement. Afin de déterminer la nature du contrat, ils tenteront de négocier ce dernier avec l'entreprise. 

L'équipe de recherche souhaite que ce projet serve de tremplin pour des études comparatives concernant l'état du droit dans ce domaine et qu'il permette d'éclairer davantage la situation des travailleurs dans l'économie de partage au sein duquel ils travaillent, comme l'a démontré le tribunal dans l’affaire Uber Technologies c. Heller (2020 CSC 16), avec certaine précarité.

rapport de recherche

« L'illusion d'égalité : le contrat de livreur DoorDash qui pourrait vous piéger »

article de blogue : « Negotiating the Non-Negotiable: An Insight into DoorDash's Contractual Power Play »

In the high-stakes game of gig economy, DoorDash plays a powerful hand, but do Dashers truly understand what they're betting on? Our work to decipher the DoorDash contract reveals a troubling disparity between the written terms and the company's actions. If you're considering delivering for DoorDash or are already on board, this insight is critical: protect yourself, otherwise you may be left empty-handed in the face of corporate might.

When first signing up to become a Dasher, you may recall that you first had to agree to a document entitled: Independent Contractor Agreement. Furthermore, you may find this same document pop-up on your mobile device at seemingly random moments while Dashing as DoorDash oftenu pdates this contract. Being presented with an approximately 15-page contractual agreement on your cellular device without the opportunity to print it may dissuade you from reading it, especially since not accepting the terms means being locked-out from Dashing. Did you click through? The goal of our research was to investigate what agreeing to this Independent Contractor Agreement actually obliges a Dasher to. Unfortunately, as we found out, even if one did decide to read this contract in its entirety, there turns out to be many clauses that are quite misleading.

For this legal research initiative, all three of us attempted to contact DoorDash in order to make inquiries in regard to the Independent Contractors Agreement. We contacted DoorDash at different moments within the life of the average Dasher: A Dasher prior to signing the Independent Contractor Agreement, a Dasher shortly after signing the Independent Contractor Agreement, and a Dasher employed for several years making inquiries about an updated Independent Contractor Agreement imposed upont hem. Specifically, we asked about the following:

·     Whether Dasher payments could be negotiated as stated in clause 7.1 of the April 14, 2023 updated agreement or clause VI (1) of the previous agreement.

·     Opting out of the arbitration agreement as stated in clause 14.10 of the April 14, 2023 updated agreement or clause XII (10) of the previous agreement.

·     What personal data DoorDash collects from its Dashers as stated in clause 4 of the April 14, 2023 updated agreement or clause IV (1) of the previous agreement; and

·     Which legal jurisdiction would apply to Dashers that deliver between two provinces since this was unclear in clause 25.1 (b) (6) (ii) and (iii) of the April 14, 2023 updated agreement or clause XII (5) (b) and (c) of the previous agreement.

The pay, being foundational to all Dashers, was all three authors’ first topic of negotiation. We tried to reach DoorDash in many ways – phone calls, direct messaging, and post mail. DoorDash always remained firm on its position. Either a DoorDash representative would state that “no negotiation can be done” or DoorDash would simply ignore the question altogether. In fact, one of us was told that in order to negotiate anything on the contract, she must sign the contract first! Unfortunately, DoorDash's firm stance on not negotiating and their silence betrays the contractual terms they themselves impose.

The arbitration clause was our next focus. Simply put, this clause would mean that all disputes that a Dasher were to have with DoorDash would not go to a court; instead, they would be ruled upon by an arbiter – a sort of hired judge – from a group of these arbiters chosen by DoorDash. The arbiter then makes a binding decision on the issue in dispute. This has a couple distinct advantages for DoorDash: the decision will never be known to the public and it is quite dissuasive since will cost you a lot of money. Uber used to make you travel to the Netherlands and spend over $14,500 before anyone ever heard your case – that is, until 2020 when the Supreme Court called it unconscionable – meaning excessively unfair. Since then, companies started making it possible to opt-out, at least in theory. We tried with DoorDash and had no success, however. One of us was even told over the phone that DoorDash would not allow it! We also attempted to do the same via direct messaging and post mail, but DoorDash never replied. What made this even more frustrating was the fact that sending each letter cost $33 because DoorDash mandated it be sent by priority mail to California! DoorDash clearly failed to uphold the promises and follow the procedures they lay out in their contract.

The author who called was the one who inquired the most in regard to DoorDash’s collection of Dasher personal information and the issue of legal jurisdiction – which laws apply – when one delivers in an area bordering two provinces. In regard to personal information, the DoorDash representative asserted that DoorDash does not collect any private information from its Dashers, contradicting what is clearly spelled out in their contract. Next, when asked about which laws apply, the DoorDash representative seemed confused. In fact, the representative systematically used the term “states” rather than “provinces”, even though he was repeatedly told that she was in Canada which has provinces, not states. Furthermore, the representative was adamant that the contract was non-negotiable; the representative did not say much more than that in regard to this matter.

After all of our attempts to contact DoorDash, we all felt quite perplexed and unsure how one would continue their job as a Dasher. We also felt quite frustrated: either DoorDash would ignore the questions we asked, or they denied the clear promises written in their proposed contract. Although the Independent Contractors Agreement states that the “Agreement is between two co-equal, independent business enterprises”, DoorDash does not seem to uphold this equality when dealing with theirs o-called “co-equal” Dashers.

In the face of unwavering rejections from DoorDash, it is evident that negotiation of the contract is not an option they're willing to consider. Still, our advice for those contemplating employment with DoorDash is to make attempts to negotiate the contract and keep a record. Should DoorDash refuse to discuss any part of it, it solidifies the qualification of the agreement as an adhesion contract – a 'take it or leave it' scenario. This in turn triggers the protections offered to adherents by Quebec law, more specifically sections 1435 to 1437 of the Quebec Civil Code which will protect you against abuses. We also suggest that you take the time to find and follow the procedure in the contract to withdraw from the arbitration clause. (Search for “withdraw”.) Do it as soon you sign the contract! After 30 days, DoorDash will always say you waved your right to sue in the Small Claims Court and force you to go through an arbitration, which will cost you at least four times as much before you even hire a lawyer, which you will need. For those already Dashing, read through the agreement and ask yourself if you really agree to it.

We underline the paramount importance for prospective and current Dashers to fully understand the terms to which they're agreeing. Go to a legal clinic, ask for advice. It's crucial that you be proactive in protecting your rights. Given DoorDash's unyielding stance on non-negotiation, vigilance and self-education are key. A collective push for transparency, fairness, and respect in such jobs starts with individual actions and decisions– yours. 

rapport de recherche

À venir.

biographies de l'équipe de recherche

Daniel Glikstein est un étudiant en première année de la licence en droit civil et il fait partie de l'équipe de ski alpin des Gee-Gees. Il est particulièrement intéressé par le domaine des obligations.

Sylvie Martin est une étudiante de première année au programme de la licence de droit civil et baccalauréat en sciences sociales spécialisé en développement international et mondialisation.

Avant de se joindre à l’Université d’Ottawa, elle a travaillé pendant plus de 10 ans dans le domaine équestre en tant que cavalière professionnelle opérant sur le circuit provincial et national, entraîneur et groom. Elle a eu l’incroyable opportunité de partager son temps entre Ottawa et la Floride dans le cadre de son emploi, en travaillant notamment pour Ian Millar et Jill Henselwood, deux cavaliers ayant cumulativement représenté le Canada à plus de 11 Jeux Olympiques dans la discipline du saut d’obstacle.

Elle a décidé de prendre sa retraite du monde sportif en 2020 et elle a obtenu son diplôme du programme de gestion culinaire de la Cité Collégiale. Elle s’est, par la suite, inscrite au programme de la licence de droit civil à l’Université d’Ottawa, où elle développe une affinité particulière pour le droit international public et privé. 

Brandon Azimov est étudiant en première année de droit civil à l'Université d'Ottawa. Avant d'étudier le droit, il a obtenu un baccalauréat en sciences et une maîtrise en sciences de l'Université McGill, les deux diplômes avec une spécialisation en physiothérapie. Il a ensuite travaillé en tant que physiothérapeute privé avant de commencer ses études de droit. Ses intérêts de recherche portent sur le droit des obligations, le droit pénal, le droit de la santé et le droit des biens.