Roughly 60,000 delivery drivers who worked for Grubhub in California could each receive at least $25 from a $24.75 million settlement fund tied to worker misclassification claims, but only if they file valid paperwork before the June 18 deadline. The payout stems from long-running disputes over whether the company wrongly classified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. With the clock ticking, thousands of eligible workers risk forfeiting their share simply because they no longer use the platform or never received notice of the deal.
Why the June 18 deadline puts real money at risk for Grubhub drivers
The settlement creates a narrow window for drivers to act. Each valid claim filed by June 18 guarantees a minimum $25 payment, with the potential for a larger share depending on how many people ultimately submit paperwork. That math cuts both ways: fewer claims filed means bigger individual payouts for those who do participate, but it also means a significant portion of the $24.75 million fund could go uncollected by the people it was designed to compensate.
A reasonable expectation is that claim volume will fall well below 60,000. Many drivers who delivered for Grubhub in California during the relevant period have since moved on to other work or left the state entirely. Gig platforms experience high turnover, and drivers who stopped using the app years ago may not have current contact information on file. Settlement notices sent to outdated email addresses or old physical addresses often go unread. The result is a familiar pattern in class action cases: eligible workers miss out on money set aside specifically for them.
Separate federal scrutiny adds another layer of pressure on Grubhub. The Federal Trade Commission, along with the state of Illinois, brought enforcement action in a case against Grubhub, resulting in a stipulated order that requires the company to change certain business practices. That federal action focused on deceptive practices rather than worker classification, but it signals that regulators at multiple levels of government have found fault with how Grubhub operates.
Federal enforcement and the California settlement share a common thread
The FTC case and the California driver settlement address different legal theories, yet both center on the gap between what Grubhub promised and what workers and consumers actually experienced. In the federal matter, the stipulated order compels the company to alter specific conduct the FTC deemed misleading. In California, the settlement resolves allegations that drivers were denied employee protections, including minimum wage guarantees and expense reimbursement, because of their contractor status.
From a driver’s perspective, the two tracks of accountability are connected. The federal enforcement effort underscores that regulators are willing to challenge how Grubhub presents its fees, policies, and terms, while the California settlement reflects pressure over how the company structures its labor model. Together, they suggest that both customers and workers have faced consequences from the same underlying business choices.
Drivers who believe they were harmed by Grubhub’s practices beyond the California settlement can file complaints through the FTC’s online fraud reporting portal. The agency also maintains resources for identity theft response at a dedicated assistance site and provides tools for dealing with unwanted communications at donotcall.gov. These channels exist independently of the California case but reflect the broader regulatory attention directed at the company and the gig economy more generally.
What drivers should do before June 18 and what stays uncertain
For any California Grubhub driver who has not yet filed a claim, the single most important step is to locate the official settlement notice and submit the required form before the June 18 cutoff. Drivers who no longer have access to their old Grubhub accounts should look for mailed or emailed notices sent to addresses they used while working on the platform. If a notice cannot be found, checking with the settlement administrator-whose contact details are typically listed in public court filings and on the official settlement website-can confirm eligibility and provide replacement claim forms.
Because the minimum payment is guaranteed, eligible drivers face little downside in participating. Submitting a claim does not require them to keep working for Grubhub or to waive rights unrelated to the specific misclassification period and issues covered by the settlement. At the same time, the ultimate size of each check will remain uncertain until after the claims window closes and administrators calculate how many valid submissions arrived on time.
There are other open questions the settlement does not resolve. It does not, by itself, redefine drivers as employees going forward, nor does it settle broader debates over how gig workers should be classified under California and federal law. Future litigation or legislation could still alter the ground rules for app-based delivery work. For now, though, the settlement represents concrete money on the table for drivers who delivered in the past and are willing to complete a few steps before the deadline.
As June 18 approaches, the choice for eligible drivers is straightforward. Those who act quickly and file a valid claim will secure at least a modest payment and possibly more, depending on overall participation. Those who ignore the notices-or never learn about them-will leave their share of the $24.75 million fund unclaimed. In a sector where margins are thin and expenses add up, even a relatively small check can help cover costs that many drivers say should have been reimbursed all along.
