Jeg Efterforskede Wolt. Her Er Hvad De Indrømmer.

Summary

The investigation examines Wolt’s courier pay, working conditions, insurance, market position and marketing practices. It begins with DoorDash’s settlement over alleged underpayment of delivery workers in the United States. DoorDash acquired Wolt in 2022, and the report asks whether similar issues arise in Wolt’s Danish operations.

Pay and working conditions

Wolt describes couriers as independent partners who are paid per delivery rather than by the hour. The report says this leaves couriers unpaid while waiting between orders, even when they are available for work.

Wolt cites average earnings of DKK 160 per online hour. Its often-mentioned DKK 230 “active hourly wage” counts only time spent on delivery tasks. The report estimates that around 30% of a courier’s logged-in time may be unpaid.

The team followed two couriers, Adam and Ross, and collected data from 28 couriers, about 900 deliveries and 360 delivery hours. It estimated average earnings of DKK 147 per hour, with a median of DKK 162. The sample was concentrated in the busy 5–9 p.m. period. Outside those hours, the report found longer waits and substantially lower hourly earnings. The team cautions that its data is not fully representative.

The report traces the minimum payment for an order from DKK 45 in 2020 to DKK 35 in 2021 and, according to couriers, around DKK 20 by the time of the investigation. It calculates a nominal decline of about 55%, or 62% after inflation. Wolt disputes that there is a fixed minimum and says lower payments on short trips were introduced at couriers’ request. The report says it did not see supporting documentation.

Couriers cannot see how Wolt’s pricing algorithm calculates offers. The investigation describes examples where seemingly similar or more demanding deliveries paid less, as well as instances where a courier allegedly could not see the price before accepting an order. Wolt says the total payment is normally displayed beforehand and that hidden prices are extremely rare technical errors.

The report argues that the independent-partner arrangement leaves couriers without employee protections such as holiday pay, paid sick leave and employer-provided workers’ compensation. It also says Denmark’s Tax Agency has treated Wolt couriers as employees for tax purposes, creating a mismatch between their tax treatment and the benefits available to them.

According to the report, Wolt’s voluntary insurance has significant exclusions. Its liability cover applies to couriers using bicycles or e-bikes, not cars or mopeds, while accident cover is limited to specified serious injuries and circumstances. Couriers may also have to cover damage to their own vehicles and other costs themselves.

Industry and market power

The report compares Wolt’s model with Just Eat’s former collective agreement, which included fixed hourly pay, holiday and sick pay, pension and vehicle provisions. It argues that the higher costs of those protections put Just Eat at a competitive disadvantage. Just Eat later moved toward using freelance couriers and ultimately left Denmark.

Denmark’s Competition Council ruled that Wolt had abused its dominant position in the food-delivery market. The report says Wolt’s market share rose from roughly 50% to 80% in two years and describes restrictions affecting restaurant pricing and how refunds or discounts could be charged. Wolt disputes the ruling and is taking the case to court, though it removed the disputed price clause before the decision.

Wolt says 79% of its couriers prefer to remain independent. The investigation examined the in-app questionnaire behind that figure and argues that its descriptions favor independent status by emphasizing flexibility while giving little attention to employment benefits. Wolt says the figure comes from a Copenhagen Economics survey and notes that holiday pay was mentioned earlier in the questionnaire. The report maintains that key benefits were still omitted from the descriptions being compared.

The report also describes courier protests and the isolating nature of app-based work, which can make it harder for couriers to meet and organize. Wolt says it is open to dialogue and holds workshops, but the report says no meeting with the couriers had taken place.

Marketing and Wolt’s response

A Wolt promotion advertised 25% off but capped the saving at DKK 30. On the minimum order of DKK 189, the report calculates that the maximum discount would be less than 16%. The Consumer Ombudsman considered the marketing misleading and reported Wolt to the police under the Marketing Act.

The report also criticizes a Wolt TikTok video that used presenter Oliver’s name and format to promote courier recruitment, allegedly without his knowledge or permission. Wolt removed it after receiving the investigation’s questions, called the omission of consent a mistake and apologized. It declined to disclose the promotional budget.

Wolt answered 30 of the investigation’s 31 questions. It stands by its DKK 160 hourly estimate, says more than 90% of couriers are satisfied and most work part-time, and describes its model as a trade-off between flexibility and security. Wolt says waiting time is not entirely under its control, though it acknowledges that the number of couriers affects waiting. It also says pay is reviewed continuously but not adjusted automatically for inflation.

Wolt says cancelled orders can sometimes receive extra payment, although the couriers followed by the team did not receive it in the examples discussed. It says it is in dialogue with 3F about a possible agreement for independent couriers. Wolt also acknowledged that the discount campaign was a mistake and said it had tightened its procedures.

Presenter and contributors

• Oliver Hvam — the subtitles render his surname as “Wam,” and he is also identified as Broliver.
• Adam and Ross — couriers followed during shifts.
• Lara — field contributor.
• Alam Tribolei — courier interviewed.
• Torben Jensen — Consumer Ombudsman, quoted.