DoorDash CEO Denounces Viral Claim About Pay Algorithms

Tony Xu, the head of DoorDash, has strongly negated the widespread assertion that the firm makes use of a “desperation score” to figure out the payment for the drivers. The rumor, which circulated through social networks and forums, characterized the company as evaluating the drivers’ monetary difficulties to set their pay. Xu denounced the claim as “appalling” and stated that the company has never used such a measure.

A Reddit thread was at the origins of this controversy, which came to light in late 2025. An anonymous user, claiming to work for a big food delivery company, wrote that internal performance evaluations and pay decisions at certain platforms are based on an algorithmic score that reflects the drivers’ desperation. The post suggested that drivers who are more “desperate” could be assigned less lucrative delivery jobs or simply be less preferred for delivery assignments.

DoorDash acted quickly and decisively, declaring that Xu’s rebuttal was even stronger than the original claim. He explicitly stated that the company does not rely on this type of scoring system and that anyone who would promote such a practice within DoorDash would be immediately dismissed.

He furthermore described the accusation as not only false but also completely opposite to the company’s values. A representative of the company echoed that there is no consideration of the driver’s neediness or personal situation involved in payment or delivery assignments at DoorDash.

The proclamation is made while the algorithmic labour practices in the gig economy are under disproportionate examination. The advocates of the food delivering and ride-hailing apps often point out the problems in the remuneration system, claiming it to be opaque, unfair and biased towards workers depending on the location and also during the peak demand hours. The law makers and the groups advocating for workers have been discussing the need for more explicit and transparent disclosures regarding the calculation of platform payment.
Even though Xu refuted, the incident highlights the rift between the tech companies and the labour unions advocating for social justice and equity. DoorDash and the like Uber and Lyft have been subjected to revealing how the algorithms affect the workers’ pay, job offers, and access to K benefit.

The industry experts point out that it is very common for people to misinterpret the algorithmic processes while discussing gig jobs. The major part of the platforms is the data-driven model that is used to make an assumption of the delivery times, matching up of orders with the nearby drivers, and setting up of the incentives according to the market conditions. The companies, however, argue that the models they use do not take into account factors such as financial desperation.

Xu’s remarks are intended to give a sense of assurance to both the drivers already working and the ones who are considering joining that the payment practices are fair and not at all affected by subjective or exploitative methods. DoorDash has been working on increasing the participation of drivers by providing them with facilities such as transparent pay breakdowns, flexible schedules and bonuses during high-demand times, which the company claims are aimed at rewarding productivity and service quality.

Still, the broader debate on how algorithm transparency and worker rights intersect continues. Legislators in several U.S. states have proposed rules requiring delivery platforms to disclose how pay is determined and provide workers greater control over their data. As platforms evolve, disputes like this one may fuel policy discussions on the future of gig work oversight.