The Wolt Ruling: Bicycle Couriers Are Not Employees – What Does It Mean for Your Business?

Background

Wolt operates a digital platform connecting restaurants, consumers, and delivery couriers. Several thousand active couriers are registered on the platform. Three of them argued that they were, in substance, employees. All three had signed standard contracts with Wolt, either as sole traders or as freelancers.

Couriers use the Wolt app to receive assignments. An algorithm distributes each assignment to an available courier, who has 60 seconds to accept or decline. Pay is calculated dynamically, based on factors such as delivery distance, type of outlet, and weather conditions. Couriers are free to decide when to log on, and there are no minimum availability requirements. They can freely decline assignments without negative consequences.

The case was first heard by the Oslo District Court, which on 4 April 2025 ruled in favour of the couriers, finding them to be employees. The district court set employment percentages and ordered Wolt to pay overtime compensation, holiday pay, public holiday supplements, and non-economic damages, and to retrospectively enroll the couriers in a pension scheme.

Wolt appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the outcome entirely. Wolt was acquitted of all claims, and each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs at both levels of proceedings.

How the Court of Appeal Assessed the Case

Under Norwegian employment law, classification as an employee triggers a range of statutory protections, including rights relating to notice, overtime, holiday pay, and working hours. The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor therefore has significant legal and financial consequences for businesses.

The Court of Appeal held that the 2024 amendment to Section 1-8 of the Working Environment Act did not change the existing legal position. A concrete overall assessment must still be carried out, drawing on factors developed through case law and legislative history, supplemented by two newer factors introduced by the amendment: the nature of the work, and the opportunity to negotiate one’s own terms. At the core of the assessment is the degree of dependency and subordination, that is, how free workers genuinely are from the platform’s management and control.

Personal labour

The court found that couriers in practice make their personal labour available, since registering substitutes is rarely practical. This factor, viewed in isolation, points toward an employment relationship. However,  the court gave it limited weight, because the couriers themselves choose when and which assignments to take.

The court held that the couriers do not make their labour continuously available. They are free to decide when they want to be accessible and which assignments they accept, with no contractual availability requirements. Pay is directly linked to output, and Wolt has the right to make deductions for deficient deliveries. Taken together, these factors point toward an independent contractor arrangement.

Direction, management, and control

The court acknowledged a clear element of management in Wolt’s algorithm-based distribution of assignments, and confirmed that managerial authority can be exercised through technical applications, not just through direct human instruction. Once a courier accepts an assignment, their freedom of action is significantly restricted.

Nevertheless, the court found that the level of control is not more intrusive than is normal in independent contractor arrangements, and that this factor does not point clearly in either direction overall.

Equipment, competition, and contract terms

The couriers provide their own mobile phones, work clothing, and means of transport. They are free to take assignments for competing platforms,  including simultaneously and while wearing a competitor’s clothing and using their equipment. These factors support a contractor arrangement.

The contract includes a 14-day mutual notice period, but the working relationship is, in practice, fairly unstable. Couriers are paid per assignment and have no opportunity to negotiate pay or terms. The absence of any negotiating power points toward employment,  but, in line with a recent Supreme Court decision (HR-2025-2516-A, Beredskapshjem II), the court did not treat this factor as decisive on its own.

The Majority's Overall Assessment

The majority placed considerable weight on the couriers’ real independence and personal autonomy. The couriers have full control over their own working hours and choose whether to make themselves available at all. The right to decline assignments is genuine and is exercised frequently. They are free to work for competing platforms and supply their own means of transport.

The majority also noted that all three couriers in the case declined offers of permanent employment with a Wolt subsidiary after the district court’s judgment,  a detail the court found relevant to assessing the nature of the relationship.

The majority acknowledged that couriers may have genuine needs for protection relating to health, safety, and working hours. However, it held that protection needs alone cannot be decisive when classifying the legal nature of a working arrangement.

The Dissenting Opinion

One lay judge dissented and found the couriers to be employees. The minority placed weight on the significant degree of algorithmic control, the absence of any negotiating position, the couriers’ limited insight into how the algorithm affected their earnings, and an unequal power relationship reinforced by economic dependence. The minority also highlighted the couriers’ need for health and safety protections and co-determination rights, and the fact that their work falls within Wolt’s core business activity.

Key Signals from the Ruling

The main message is clear: genuine freedom to determine one’s own working hours and decline assignments carries substantial weight in the overall assessment. The fact that this freedom can, in practice, override factors relating to algorithmic control and protection needs is an important signal for businesses using comparable models.

At the same time, the court confirmed that managerial authority can be exercised through algorithms,  and that this is a recognised form of direction and control. Algorithm-based management is not, however, sufficient on its own to establish an employment relationship, particularly where workers retain genuine freedom to choose when and whether to work.

The split verdict, and the fact that the district court reached the opposite conclusion,  reflects that the legal position for platform workers in Norway remains unsettled. The Court of Appeal itself noted that European case law has produced different outcomes for comparable business models. In Germany, for example, Wolt bicycle couriers are classified as employees.

Although the Norwegian legislature has stated in the preparatory works to the 2024 amendment that the clarification of the employee concept may result in more people acquiring employee status,  particularly in the platform economy,  this ruling demonstrates that the overall assessment still leaves considerable room for discretion.

The case has now been appealed to the Norwegian Supreme Court. Leave to appeal is not automatic, and there is no guarantee it will be granted.

What Should Your Business Do Now?

The Wolt ruling provides useful guidance for businesses that use platform-based models or engage workers in flexible arrangements. That said, platform work varies considerably from one business to the next. Businesses must carry out a concrete assessment of their specific workforce arrangements, because even minor differences in how work is structured can affect the legal classification outcome. It is not inconceivable that different groups within the same organisation could be classified differently, depending on how those groups are organised.

Key points to consider:

• Businesses that wish to engage independent contractors must ensure those contractors have genuine freedom to determine their working hours and decline assignments. It is the actual circumstances,  not what the contract states on paper, that determine classification.
• Businesses that use algorithms to distribute and manage assignments should be aware that this constitutes an element of direction and control. The more detailed the operational control, the greater the risk that the relationship will be classified as employment.
• The ruling is not yet final. Further legal proceedings should be expected, and the outcome at Supreme Court level could shift the legal position again.
• The EU Platform Work Directive, adopted in 2024, may require Norwegian implementation that alters the legal landscape. The Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion is currently assessing what consequences the directive will have for Norwegian law.

Misclassification can be costly. Back pay, holiday pay, pension contributions, and other entitlements can amount to significant sums. We recommend that businesses monitor legal developments and regularly assess whether their working arrangements reflect the actual circumstances on the ground.

How We Can Help

If you would like an assessment of how your business classifies its workforce, we have extensive experience with working arrangement structures and classification questions. We are happy to assist with a concrete review of your organisation’s situation.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please contact us directly.