The Deliveroo Case: Moving Towards the End of Judicial Control for Digital Gang-mastering

1. The facts

   According to reports from Sky TG24, Open, and Il Sole 24 Ore, the case reached a crucial turning point on August 28, 2026. Deliveroo Italy S.r.l., which had been placed under urgent judicial control in March 2026 by order of the GIP at the request of the Prosecutor, proposed a structural reform plan to exit the preventive measure. The investigation alleges digital gang-mastering under Art. 603-bis c.p., charging the company with exploiting approximately 20,000 workers by taking advantage of their state of need. Media outlets report that the original prosecution allegations centered on wages significantly lower than constitutional minimums (between 2.50 and 5 euros per delivery) and algorithmic monitoring that imposed grueling shifts. At the current stage, the proceeding is in the execution phase of the asset prevention measure, with the Prosecutor's Office issuing a favorable opinion toward revoking control, contingent on the actual implementation of a minimum hourly rate of 14 euros and automatic limits on driving hours for road safety.

2. 

   The relevant laws

   The pillar of the charge is Art. 603-bis c.p., which punishes illicit intermediation and labor exploitation, characterized by taking advantage of the worker's state of need and the systematic violation of wage and safety rules. Alongside the criminal profile, Art. 34-bis of Legislative Decree 159/2011 (Anti-Mafia Code) applies, regulating the judicial control of companies. This provision allows the State to appoint a judicial administrator to work alongside ordinary management when it is suspected that the business activity occasionally facilitates criminal conduct, aiming for corporate remediation rather than closure. Finally, Legislative Decree 231/2001 is relevant, as it provides for administrative corporate liability for gang-mastering crimes committed in the entity's interest or to its benefit, imposing heavy financial penalties if the company fails to prove it adopted and effectively implemented organizational models suitable to prevent such offenses.

3. What case law says

   The courts, especially the Milan Tribunal, have developed the so-called Milan Method, interpreting judicial control not as a purely punitive sanction, but as a therapeutic tool. According to established jurisprudence, the judiciary intervenes to remove illegal practices within legal yet degenerate business models. High court judges have clarified that the state of need does not necessarily coincide with absolute poverty, but consists of a vulnerability that limits the worker's freedom of self-determination, forcing them to accept degrading conditions. Furthermore, case law has confirmed that a platform's algorithm can constitute the technical tool through which exploitation is exercised, if it is programmed to reward dangerous behavior or to evade the minimum wages guaranteed by the Constitution.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Algorithmic audit: for corporate counsel, it is essential to subject labor management algorithms and AI systems to periodic compliance audits to prevent charges of digital gang-mastering.
   2. Dialogue with the Prosecutor: the case shows that a collaborative approach during preventive measures can preserve business continuity and save the company from catastrophic asset outcomes.
   3. Wage parameters: in the absence of a statutory minimum wage, legal professionals must use Art. 36 of the Constitution as a benchmark for advising on compensation that precludes any presumption of exploitation.
   4. Updating 231 Models: it is necessary to integrate labor exploitation risks into corporate organizational models, especially for companies managing workforces through automated systems.

References: Articolo 603-bis Codice PenaleArticolo 34-bis Decreto Legislativo 159/2011Decreto Legislativo 231/2001Articolo 36 Costituzione

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 30 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction