Milan prosecutors have placed Foodinho — a company linked to Glovo — under judicial control as part of an investigation into alleged systematic worker exploitation. An administrative overseer has been appointed to work alongside the company’s management while inquiries continue.
What the prosecutors found and why it matters
The Milan public prosecutor is treating the case as caporalato, the Italian term for systemic labor exploitation. Authorities say many couriers were paid sums that didn’t reflect their work and that this pattern affected multiple workers over time. The emergency measure is meant to stop ongoing harm while investigators dig deeper.
How the platform’s design figures in the case
A central pillar of the prosecution’s argument is the platform’s technical architecture. Prosecutors examined databases, tracking logs and app parameters, arguing that geolocation data, timestamps, status markers and pay rules together create a continuous supervision system. Their contention: those algorithmic settings shape schedules, performance targets and pay in ways that look and act like managerial control — potentially turning freelance labels into something closer to employment.
Choices facing Glovo
Glovo has two clear options. It can accept oversight and overhaul internal organisation and compliance processes, or it can appeal to the Tribunale del Riesame to try to overturn the judicial control. Each path carries different legal and reputational hazards.
The risks of appealing
Pushing back at the tribunal is not risk-free. If the appeal fails, the prosecutor’s findings could gain strong judicial weight early on, complicating later court fights and damaging the company’s public image. By contrast, cooperating with the appointed administrator might allow Glovo to implement fixes quickly and demonstrate a commitment to compliance.
Practical steps Glovo could take
Practically speaking, the company could start by auditing algorithmic settings, reworking contract terms, tightening wage-monitoring practices and improving recordkeeping. Those moves aim directly at the prosecutors’ chief claim: that the platform’s technical systems functionally organise work. Whether these actions satisfy authorities or placate couriers will depend on how thorough, fast and transparent the reforms are.
How Milan’s approach fits a broader pattern
The Milan team has pursued similar probes across logistics, retail and fashion sectors, often preferring negotiated remedies over drawn-out trials. In past cases, companies resolved issues by changing workplace procedures or addressing fiscal gaps. Regulators, experience shows, tend to favour enforceable fixes that restore compliance without causing market turmoil.
Wider implications for the gig economy
This case highlights an emerging fault line in platform economies: when do software-driven controls become equivalent to employer direction? Algorithmic management is fast becoming a legal battleground, and the judicial control is effectively a pause button — giving judges and regulators time to decide where that line falls.
What happens next
For Glovo, the immediate future depends on its tactical choice: submit to oversight and reshape platform governance, or fight the measure and risk an adverse ruling that could harden prosecutors’ claims. Either way, the outcome will be closely watched by other platforms navigating the same legal and ethical terrain.