On 24 February 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal handed down its ruling in the landmark case concerning whether delivery couriers in the platform economy should be considered employees or contractors. Contrary to the District Court, the majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the couriers are not employees under Section 1-8, first paragraph of the Working Environment Act, and acquitted Wolt Norway AS. Here is a summary of the case.
Wolt is a digital platform that connects suppliers, customers and delivery couriers. The platform is marketed internationally and has been established in several countries. Customers can order restaurant food, groceries and other products and choose to have them delivered to their homes.
A courier who is offered an assignment will see basic information in the app about the suggested route, expected payment and pick-up address. If the courier swipes up, they will receive further information about the assignment, including the delivery address. The courier has a maximum of 60 seconds to accept or decline the offer.
The case concerned claims from three delivery couriers who demanded to be considered employees of Wolt Norway AS under Section 1-8, first paragraph of the Working Environment Act. The central question was whether the delivery couriers should be considered independent contractors or employees.
Oslo District Court ruled that the couriers were employees and permanently employed by Wolt Norway AS and ordered Wolt to comply with the legal requirements relating to employment. This meant permanent employment, overtime and public holiday pay, holiday pay, retroactive enrolment in a collective pension scheme and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It would also mean employer's national insurance contributions for the employer, as well as compensation for the couriers.
Read also: Oslo District Court's decision in the Wolt case
The three plaintiffs had different relationships with Wolt:
Courier A entered into an agreement with Wolt in February 2021. He has a sole proprietorship, and Wolt has registered the income as business income..
Courier B has carried out assignments for Wolt since he came to Norway in 2019. The latest agreement entered with Wolt is dated 11 January 2024. Courier B also has a sole proprietorship, and Wolt has reported the income as business income.
Courier C entered into an agreement with Wolt to be a freelancer on 13 January 2021. Wolt has reported him as an employee in NAV's employee register.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that the question of whether platform workers should have employee status under the Working Environment Act is not specifically regulated by law, and that it must be assessed on a case-by-case basis with reference to Section 1-8 of the Working Environment Act.
Following a change in the law from 1 January 2024, an employee is now defined as "anyone who performs work for and is subordinate to another person." In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal systematically considered the following factors, among others:
The Court of Appeal found that, in practice, the couriers make their personal labor available, as the use of substitute workers is effectively ruled out. An interested substitute can instead register as a courier themselves, and once an assignment has been accepted, there is no time to hand it over to someone else. None of the respondents had registered substitutes with Wolt. However, given that the couriers themselves can choose when and which assignments they take, this factor was not considered to carry significant weight.
The Court of Appeal found that delivery couriers do not make their labour available on an ongoing basis, because they are completely free to decide when they want to be available and which delivery assignments they accept. Couriers also bear a significant part of the risk for the work results. There are no agreed requirements to be available during a specific period, nor are there any minimum requirements for couriers to be available for a specific number of days or hours per week.
In the Court of Appeal's assessment, delivery couriers do not make their labor available on an ongoing basis. It is also the Court's assessment that the couriers are, in principle, under an obligation to deliver a result, even though there are elements that resemble an employment relationship. Overall, these two factors indicate that the respondents are in fact contractors.
The Court of Appeal found that managerial authority can be exercised through technical applications and algorithms, as provided for in the preparatory works for the amendment to Section 1-8 of the Working Environment Act. In this case, it is essentially a matter of app-based management through algorithms.
The couriers are completely free to choose when they want to work. They decide for themselves when to log in and out, and they are under no obligation to accept assignments offered to them when they are logged into the app. Viewed in isolation, this points towards a contractor relationship.
The fact that it is Wolt that distributes the assignment offers to the couriers is a clear element of direction. The couriers cannot, through their own efforts – other than by moving around geographically – increase their chances of being offered a delivery. The fact that Wolt distributes the assignments without either the couriers or the suppliers having any influence on this means, in itself, that it is an employment relationship. However, the Court of Appeal added that the degree of control would have been greater if the algorithm took the couriers' performance into account – for example, based on customer feedback. This is not the case.
The way in which the platform effectively controls how an assignment is carried out argues in isolation for the couriers being classified as employees. They have little influence on how the assignment can best be carried out once they have accepted it. On the other hand, this control of the assignment is part of the core of Wolt's service offering and could therefore also be imposed on other transport providers, such as taxi owners.
In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, it is not unusual for a client to monitor the results of a contractor. Overall, however, there is a certain degree of ongoing monitoring of the couriers, which in isolation suggests that they are employees. Nevertheless, the general impression is that this does not generally involve direct management of the type that is common in ordinary employment relationships. The Court of Appeal found overall that the factor of management and control does not point unequivocally in any direction in the classification.
Wolt provides the technology platform which the couriers use free of charge. However, the couriers themselves provide their own mobile phones, work clothing and means of transport, and cover all operating expenses. The fact that the couriers provide and cover all costs for bicycles/cars and equipment themselves suggests that they are contractors.
The couriers have no contractual exclusivity. On the contrary, the contract states that they can work for other similar platforms. Couriers can be logged into competing apps at the same time and "shop" for assignments and can deliver for Wolt wearing clothing and carrying bags belonging to a competitor. There are no disadvantages associated with taking on assignments for a competitor. The fact that the couriers are responsible for most of the equipment themselves and are free to take on assignments for others suggests, in isolation, that this is a contractor relationship.
The couriers have no opportunity to negotiate either their remuneration or other working conditions. This is determined unilaterally by Wolt.
The lack of any real opportunity to negotiate their own financial terms suggests that an employment relationship exists. However, this factor was not considered decisive or particularly weighty on its own, with reference to HR-2025-2516-A (Beredskapshjem II) paragraphs 80 and 81.
Wolt considers itself a technology company that develops and operates a marketplace through a digital platform, but Wolt's business has similarities with businesses that provide delivery services. In order for the platform to fulfil its function, it is necessary for Wolt to also organize the couriers and support them in carrying out their assignments. In total, there are several thousand delivery couriers associated with Wolt in Norway.
When couriers are part of an organizational context as described, there is an argument that some of the work performed by the couriers falls within the company's permanent labor needs, and this factor suggests that an employment relationship exists. On the other hand, the couriers are recruited informally, because anyone can download the app and fill in the required information. However, this factor is not decisive in an overall assessment.
The majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the delivery couriers are independent contractors.
The majority placed significant emphasis on the fact that the couriers are genuinely independent and have a high degree of personal autonomy. The couriers have complete control over their own working hours. They can decide when and for how long they want to accept assignments. Even after choosing to be online on the app, the couriers themselves decide whether to make themselves available and whether to accept or reject individual assignments. Wolt presented statistics showing that a significant number of offered assignments are rejected by the couriers, and the majority emphasized that the right to reject offered assignments is a real possibility that the couriers make considerable use of.
The contractor relationship is also supported by the fact that couriers are completely free to take on assignments for competing platforms and that they provide their own means of transport. Although Wolt exercises a certain degree of control and direction in the performance of the assignments, this is no longer extensive or intrusive than is normal in a contractor relationship. In the majority's view, the real freedom enjoyed by delivery couriers confirms that there is no such imbalance of power as to make it necessary for the couriers to have the protection afforded by classification as employees.
The majority agrees that the couriers may need protection and oversight in relation to health, safety and the environment (HSE) and working hours, but this was not decisive.
A lay judge with expertise in working life considered that the delivery couriers should be regarded as employees.
As the case is of a fundamental nature and has produced different outcomes in the District Court and the Court of Appeal, it is highly likely that it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. It is therefore not yet legally binding.
This judgement places great emphasis on the independence of delivery couriers in terms of accepting or declining assignments. There are also little direct management and control from Wolt, apart from the distribution of assignments through the app. Nor is there any exclusivity, as is typically the case in an employment relationship.
Beyond this, the general factors that are systematically addressed in the judgement are important to consider in any assessment of whether a relationship constitutes an employment or a contractor arrangement. Many of the same considerations will also be relevant when assessing whether a situation involves the hiring-in of labor or constitutes a contract for services.
Are you unsure how your contracts, employee relationships or contractor relationships are regulated? Feel free to contact us.