DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York
1:21-cv-07695
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- New York City enacted the "Customer Data Law," requiring third-party food delivery services (DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub) to provide certain customer information to restaurants upon request, unless customers opt out.
- Customer data includes names, phone numbers, emails, delivery addresses, and order contents, to be provided in a machine-readable format at least monthly.
- Plaintiffs, major delivery platforms, challenged the law on constitutional grounds: First Amendment, Takings Clause, and Contract Clause claims, as well as under the NY Constitution.
- The City agreed to stay enforcement of the law pending this action, and all parties moved for summary judgment.
- The delivery platforms currently restrict direct data sharing with restaurants, often only allowing such sharing with enterprise-level restaurant clients under negotiated terms, and argue the law would force them to share valuable business data with competitors.
- The case rested primarily on whether the law violates the First Amendment by compelling commercial speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Customer Data Law compel speech protected by the First Amendment? | Law requires compelled dissemination of data—this is speech. | Law regulates conduct, not speech; platforms are just intermediaries. | Law compels protected (commercial) speech. |
| What level of First Amendment scrutiny applies? | Strict (content-based, targets non-misleading, nonpublic speech). | Rational basis (Zauderer; just factual, uncontroversial info). | Intermediate scrutiny applies (Central Hudson test). |
| Does the law further a substantial government interest by compelling the data disclosure? | No; goal is speculative and overbroad, not narrowly tailored. | Yes; protects small restaurants, evens playing field. | City's justifications are speculative and not shown substantial. |
| Is the law appropriately tailored? | Less restrictive alternatives exist. | Law is necessary to address unfair practices. | Law is not appropriately tailored to the interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) (compelled disclosure of information is speech under the First Amendment)
- Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (intermediate scrutiny for restrictions of commercial speech)
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (lower scrutiny for mandated disclosure of uncontroversial factual information in advertising)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (defining First Amendment scrutiny structure)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978) (commercial speech receives lesser protection)