1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 1 of 203
`
`
`
`Mike Arias, Esq. (SBN 115385)
` mike@aswtlawyers.com
`Elise R. Sanguinetti (SBN 191389)
` elise@aswtlawyers.com
`Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. (SBN 222458)
` alfredo@aswtlawyers.com
`ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
`6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90045
`Tel: (310) 844-9696/ Fax: (310) 861-0168
`
`Richard S. Cornfeld (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice)
` rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
`Daniel Scott Levy (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice)
` dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
`LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
`1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
`St. Louis, Missouri 63101
`Tel: (314) 241-5799 / Fax: (314) 241-5788
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`and Karson Theiss,
`Peter
`Jennifer
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`DoorDash, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiffs Jennifer Peter and Karson Theiss (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated, make the following allegations based upon information and
`belief, except as to those allegations specifically pertaining to Plaintiffs and their counsel, which
`are based on personal knowledge. Plaintiffs bring this action for restitution, monetary damages
`and injunctive relief against defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash” or “Defendant”), demanding
`a trial by jury.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class and subclasses of
`similarly situated consumers who used DoorDash’s website or app to place food-delivery orders
`and who paid tips through its website or app. Those tips, which were made by consumers with
`the intention that the tips benefit the drivers, were instead used by DoorDash fund its operations
`by subsidizing the guaranteed minimum payments that DoorDash promised and owed its drivers.
`As a result of DoorDash’s practice of using tips to assist in funding the guaranteed minimum
`payments it owes drivers, part or all of the tips for drivers that consumers paid provided no
`financial benefit to the driver.
`2.
`DoorDash’s actions as alleged herein violate the California Unfair Competition Law
`(“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, et seq., the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
`(“MMPA”), §§ 407.010 et seq., by means of unfair practices and deception, the Illinois Consumer
`Fraud Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., by means of unfair practices and deception, and
`constitute unjust enrichment under Missouri and Illinois law.
`THE PARTIES
`3.
`Plaintiff Jennifer Peter (“Plaintiff Peter”) is a resident of Madison County and a
`citizen of the State of Illinois. In May of 2019 she used DoorDash in the State of Missouri to
`place a food delivery order and to pay her driver a tip.
`4.
`Plaintiff Karson Theiss (“Plaintiff Theiss”) is a resident of St. Clair County and a
`citizen of the State of Illinois. Between March and August of 2019, he used DoorDash in the State
`of Illinois to place food delivery orders and to pay his drivers tips.
`5.
`On information and belief, defendant DoorDash (“Defendant” or “DoorDash”) is a
`
` 2 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 3 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at
`901 Market Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California 94103. DoorDash is registered to do
`business in California. Its registered agent in California is Ricardo Orozco, Registered Agent
`Solutions, Inc., 1220 S. Street, Suite 150, Sacramento, California 95811. DoorDash is also
`registered to do business in Illinois. Its registered agent in Illinois is Registered Agent Solutions,
`Inc., 901 S. 2nd St., Suite 201, Springfield, Illinois 62704. DoorDash is not currently registered
`to do business in Missouri according to the Missouri Secretary of State’s website, following its
`administrative dissolution on April 12, 2019 for failure to file a registration report.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`6.
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because
`this action arises under the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction over this action
`pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)). The aggregated claims of the
`individual class members exceed $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, at least one class
`member is of diverse citizenship from one defendant, and there are more than 100 class members.
`7.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over DoorDash because it conducted business
`in California and has sufficient minimum contacts with California.
`8.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part
`of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred and/or emanated from this District,
`as the principle place of business for DoorDash is in San Francisco, California, and because
`DoorDash has caused harm to class members residing in this District.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`A. DoorDash’s Scheme of Using “Tips” from its Customers to Subsidize the
`
`Guaranteed Minimum Payments That DoorDash Owes its Drivers.
`9.
`DoorDash is a self-described “technology company” that facilitates door-to-door
`food delivery services.1 Using DoorDash’s website or app, a consumer can place a food delivery
`order from participating restaurants that one of DoorDash’s drivers, which it calls “Dashers,” then
`
` 1 See “About Us,” on DoorDash’s website, available at https://www.doordash.com/about/ (accessed
`September 9, 2019).
`
`
`
`
` 3 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 4 of 203
`
`
`
`delivers to the consumer. A consumer who places an order through DoorDash is given the option
`to add a tip for his or her Dasher before he or she completes the order online.
`10. As outlined in a series of recent news articles, some of which are addressed below,
`and as acknowledged by DoorDash, DoorDash’s tipping policy results in parts or all of the tips
`that consumers pay not providing a financial benefit to the Dashers. This is because DoorDash
`uses tips that consumers pay to their Dashers to subsidize part or most of a guaranteed minimum
`payment (the amount of which varies per delivery) that DoorDash promises to its Dashers for each
`delivery.
`11.
`For example, if a guaranteed minimum payment to a Dasher for a delivery is $7.00
`and the consumer leaves no tip, DoorDash pays the Dasher this $7.00. But if the consumer leaves
`a $3.00 tip, DoorDash uses this $3.00 toward the guaranteed $7.00 minimum payment and only
`pays $4.00 of its own money.
`12.
`The result is that the Dasher receives no additional compensation by the consumer
`leaving a tip through DoorDash’s website or app, and the consumer is deceived into leaving a tip
`that merely reduces the amount that DoorDash has to pay the Dasher to meet the guaranteed
`minimum payment.
`13.
`This is explained in an article in the New York Times on July 21, 2019 by Andy
`Newman, a reporter who worked for a few days as a food deliveryman for various companies,
`including DoorDash.2
`14. Mr. Newman states that DoorDash offers a guaranteed minimum for each job, which
`for his first order was $6.85. Id. The customer left a $3.00 tip via DoorDash’s app, but Mr.
`Newman only received a total of $6.85 for making the delivery. Id.
`15. As he explains, had the customer not left a tip DoorDash would have paid him the
`entire $6.85. Id. But DoorDash used the customer’s $3.00 tip toward its guaranteed minimum
`payment, meaning DoorDash only contributed $3.85 towards the $6.85 guaranteed minimum
`
`
` 2 See “My Frantic Life as a Cab-Dodging, Tip-Chasing Food App Deliveryman,” available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/nyregion/doordash-ubereats-food-app-delivery-bike.html
`(accessed September 10, 2019).
`
`
` 4 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 5 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`payment owed. Id. Thus, by tipping $3.00 the customer actually saved DoorDash this amount –
`rather than increasing what the Dasher received for the delivery as consumers would reasonably
`expect. Id.
`16.
`The Washington Post also reported on DoorDash’s tipping policy, including tweets
`by DoorDash’s CEO Tony Xu in which he expressed an intent for the company to change its
`policy.3
`17.
`The article states that under DoorDash’s current policy “tips are used to meet the
`minimum payment promised to its delivery crew,” which, according to the article, has “prompted
`customers, workers and advocacy groups to accuse DoorDash of using gratuities to underwrite
`drivers’ paychecks.” Id.
`18.
`It quotes tweets from Mr. Xu addressing the policy, in which he states in part: “But
`it’s clear from recent feedback that we didn’t strike the right balance. We thought we were doing
`the right thing by making Dashers whole when a customer left no tip. What we missed was that
`some customers who *did* tip would feel like their tip did not matter.” Id.
`19.
`This statement is misleading. “Some customers” may “feel” that their tips didn’t
`matter, but the fact is that their tips didn’t matter except to subsidize the amounts that DoorDash
`owed its drivers.
`20.
`The Washington Post article also quotes a post that a DoorDash driver made on the
`website Reddit: “[DoorDash] technically doesn’t ‘steal’ your tip. They give it to you. . . BUT
`they use it to subsidize what they pay out of pocket which is basically the same thing at the end
`of the day.” Id.
`21.
`The Huffington Post similarly reported on DoorDash’s tipping policy.4 It quoted a
`tech writer named Louise Matsakis who wrote on Twitter: “I don’t believe that a single person
`
`tipping policy after outcry.” Available at
`its controversial
`to change
` 3 See “DoorDash
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/24/doordash-change-its-controversial-tipping-
`policy-after-outcry (accessed September 10, 2019).
` 4
` See “DoorDash
`to Change Tipping Model Following Backlash,” available at
`https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doordash-changes-tipping-policy_n_5d3888c6e4b020cd994d74cb
`(accessed September 10, 2019).
`
`
`
` 5 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 6 of 203
`
`
`
`intends to give a tip to a multibillion dollar venture-backed startup. They are trying to tip the
`person who delivered their order.” Id.
`22. On August 21, 2019, Business Insider reported in an article written by Graham
`Rapier that despite DoorDash having announced an intention to change its tipping policy in July
`of 2019, receipts that they reviewed from as recent as August 19, 2019 showed that it was still
`operating under the old policy.5
`23. When consumers are in the process of paying for their orders DoorDash does not
`inform them that part or all of the tips that they pay through the app or website do not benefit their
`Dashers. Rather, consumers are simply given the option to add a “Dasher Tip.” It then suggests
`various prices for the tip, such as “$2.00,” “$3.00,” “$4.00,” or “Other.” No further information
`about DoorDash’s tipping policy is presented to consumers on the webpage where they complete
`their orders. This is shown in the screenshot below, which is taken from a sample order placed
`through DoorDash’s website.6
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
` / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`
` 5 See “DoorDash appears to still be pocketing some workers’ tips despite announcing changes to its
`pay model in July.” Available at https://www.businessinsider.com/doordash-still-be-pocketing-tips-
`despite-pay-model-change-2019-8 (accessed September 13, 2019). In an article that ran on the website
`“Vox,” it was similarly reported that DoorDash failed to change its tipping policy despite nearly a month
`having passed since its announcement. See “DoorDash is still pocketing workers’ tips, almost a month
`after it promised to stop,” available at https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/20/20825937/doordash-
`tipping-policy-still-not-changed-food-delivery-app-gig-economy (accessed September 13, 2019).
` 6 Available at https://www.doordash.com/consumer/checkout/?order_cart_id=468602007 (accessed
`September 16, 2019).
`
`
` 6 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 7 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`24. As shown in the above screenshot, next to “Dasher Tip” there is an “i” enclosed in
`a circle. If a consumer happens to scroll directly over it while on a computer, the cursor turns into
`a hand symbol that enables the consumer to click on it, which then takes the consumer to a new
`webpage, addressed below.
`25. Next to “Taxes and Fees” (which, as shown in the above screenshot, appears above
`“Dasher Tip”) there is an identical “i” enclosed in a circle. If a consumer places the cursor on it,
`further information is provided in a box that pops up. However, no pop-up box appears by merely
`placing the cursor on the “i” next to “Dasher Tip.” Thus, a consumer reasonably would not know
`to click on it for further information.
`26. Nothing on the page indicates what this “i” means or says to click on it for more
`information. When a consumer is using DoorDash’s app the “i” still appears next to “Dasher
`Tip,” but by using a smartphone there is no cursor that changes into a hand symbol.
`/ / /
`
`
` 7 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 8 of 203
`
`
`
`27.
`If a consumer does click on this “i” the page they are taken to is entitled “How Is
`Your Dasher Paid?” which is very long, with four sections7, but this page fails to make clear to
`consumers that part or all of the tips that they leave through the app or website do not provide a
`financial benefit to their Dashers.
`28. A consumer who wants to learn more about the “Dasher Tip” or DoorDash’s tipping
`policy would likely go straight to the section on this webpage entitled “Tips.”
`29.
`That section states: “Whether and how much to tip is up to you, and you always
`have the option to tip more or less than the suggested amount. After each order, Dashers will be
`able to see the breakdown in their earnings between the amount DoorDash contributes and the
`customer tip.” Id.
`30. Nothing in this section entitled “Tips” informs consumers that their tips are being
`used by DoorDash to subsidize the Dasher’s guaranteed minimum payment and in most cases
`provide no financial benefit to the Dasher.
`31.
` Under the section entitled “The Dasher Pay Model” this page states: “We guarantee
`Dashers will earn a minimum amount, including tips, for completing each delivery. This
`‘guaranteed minimum’—which Dashers see before accepting any delivery—is based on the
`estimated time and effort required to complete that delivery.” Id.
`32.
`This section then provides: “For each delivery, Dashers will always receive at least
`$1 from DoorDash plus the customer tip, but Dashers will never earn less than the guaranteed
`minimum. If $1 plus tip is less than the guaranteed minimum, DoorDash will make up the
`difference. If $1 plus tip is more than the guaranteed minimum, the Dasher keeps the larger
`amount.” Id.
`33.
` Even if a consumer reads this, it does not clearly inform consumers that in most
`cases their tips merely subsidize part of DoorDash’s guaranteed minimum payments and provide
`no additional compensation to the Dasher.
`/ / /
`
`
`
`https://help.doordash.com/consumers/s/article/How-do-Dasher-earnings-
`at
`Available
`
` 7
`work?language=en_US (accessed September 10, 2019).
`
` 8 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 9 of 203
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Experiences.
`1.
`Plaintiff Peter’s Experience
`34.
`Plaintiff Peter, under the name Jennifer Markezich, placed an order through
`DoorDash’s app on May 16, 2019.8 The delivery address for this order was 727 N. 1st St., St.
`Louis, MO 63102. She left a “Dasher tip” in the amount of $2.00.
`35. On information and belief, based on the date of her order and DoorDash’s policy at
`the time, part or all of the tip that Plaintiff Peter left for her Dasher did not provide a financial
`benefit to her Dasher. Rather, DoorDash used her tip to subsidize part of its guaranteed minimum
`payment to her Dasher for that delivery.
`36. Had Plaintiff Peter known that part or all of her tip would not provide a financial
`benefit to her Dasher, but would be used by DoorDash to subsidize the amount it had to pay to the
`Dasher as part of the Dasher’s guaranteed minimum payment, she would not have left a tip through
`DoorDash’s app.
`Plaintiff Theiss’s Experience
`2.
`37.
`Plaintiff Theiss placed several orders through DoorDash’s app. His first order was
`placed on March 16, 2019.9 The delivery address for this order was 811 Old Caseyville Rd.,
`Caseyville, IL 62232. He left a “Dasher tip” in the amount of $3.00.
`38.
`Plaintiff Theiss’s next order was placed on March 20, 2019.10 The delivery address
`for this order was 1600 Keebler Rd., Collinsville, IL 62234. He added a $2.00 “Dasher tip” in
`connection with this order.
`39.
`Plaintiff Theiss placed another order through DoorDash on April 19, 2019.11 The
`delivery address was 811 Old Caseyville Rd., Caseyville, IL 62232, and he left a “Dasher tip” in
`the amount of $2.00.
`/ / /
`
`
` 8 A printout of this order is attached as Exhibit A.
` 9 A printout of this order is attached as Exhibit B.
` 10 A printout of this order is attached as Exhibit C.
` 11 A printout of this order is attached as Exhibit D.
`
` 9 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 10 of 203
`
`
`
`40. On May 27, 2019, he placed another order through DoorDash.12 The delivery
`address was 1600 Keebler Rd., Collinsville, IL 62234, and the “Dasher tip” for this order was
`$2.00.
`
`41.
`The next order that Plaintiff Theiss placed through DoorDash was on August 10,
`2019.13 The delivery address was 1600 Keebler Rd., Collinsville, IL 62234. He added a “Dasher
`tip” in the amount of $2.00.
`42.
`Plaintiff Theiss placed another order through DoorDash on August 23, 2019.14 The
`delivery address was 811 Old Caseyville Rd., Caseyville, IL 62232, and he left a “Dasher tip” in
`the amount of $2.00.
`43. On information and belief, based on the dates of his orders and DoorDash’s policy
`at the time, part or all of the tips that Plaintiff Theiss left for his Dashers did not provide a financial
`benefit to his Dashers. Rather, DoorDash used his tips to subsidize part of its guaranteed
`minimum payments to his Dashers for those deliveries.
`44. Had Plaintiff Theiss known that part or all of his tips would not provide a financial
`benefit to his Dashers, but would be used by DoorDash to subsidize the amount it had to pay to
`the Dashers as part of the Dashers’ guaranteed minimum payments, he would not have left tips
`through DoorDash’s app.
`C. DoorDash’s Tipping Policy Is Unethical and Violates Established
`
`Ethical Standards.
`45. DoorDash’s practice of using consumers’ tips to subsidize its guaranteed minimum
`payments to its Dashers, as alleged herein, violates generally accepted ethical principles of
`business conduct.
`46.
`The basis for the allegation that it is unethical to engage in the above practices
`comes, in part, from established ethical principles recognized by the Direct Marketing Association
`(“DMA”), the leading industry association for companies that, like DoorDash, market directly to
`
` 12 A printout of this order is attached as Exhibit E.
` 13 A printout of this order is attached as Exhibit F.
` 14 A printout of this order is attached as Exhibit G.
`
` 10 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 11 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`consumers, and the American Marketing Association, “the leading organization for marketers
`[and] the trusted go-to resource for marketers and academics.”
`1.
`DMA Ethical Guidelines
`47. DMA publishes principles of ethical business practices in the Direct Marketing
`Association’s Guidelines for Ethical Business Practice (2014) (“DMA Ethical Guidelines”). A
`true and copy of the DMA Ethical Guidelines is attached as Exhibit H.
`48.
`These DMA Ethical Guidelines “are intended to provide individuals and
`organizations involved in direct marketing in all media with generally accepted principles of
`conduct.” Id. at 2.
`49.
` The DMA Ethical Guidelines apply to all marketers, not just those that belong to
`DMA. DMA states that the principles “reflect DMA’s long-standing policy of high levels of
`ethics and the responsibility of the Association, its members, and all marketers to maintain
`consumer and community relationships that are based on fair and ethical principles.” Id. (emphasis
`added).
`50. DMA’s Ethical Guidelines are set forth in a series of “Articles,” each of which states
`a separate ethical principle.
`51. Article #1 of DMA’s Ethical Guidelines is “HONESTY AND CLARITY OF
`OFFER.” It states: “All offers should be clear, honest and complete so that the consumer may
`know the exact nature of what is being offered ….” Id. at 7.
`52. By concealing that it used consumers’ tips to subsidize its guaranteed minimum
`payments and that part or all of the tips do not provide a financial benefit to the Dashers, DoorDash
`violated this principle because its offer to consumers to leave a tip was not clear, honest and
`complete.
`53. Article #2 of DMA’s Ethical Guidelines is “ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY.”
`It states: “Simple and consistent statements or representations of all the essential points of the
`offer should appear in the promotional material. The overall impression of an offer should not be
`contradicted by individual statements, representations or disclaimers.” Id. at 7.
`/ / /
`
`
` 11 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 12 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`54. DMA has published a companion volume to its Ethical Guidelines called Do the
`Right Thing: A Companion to DMA’s Guidelines for Ethical Business Practice (Revised January
`2009) (“Do the Right Thing”). A true and copy of Do the Right Thing is attached as Exhibit I.
`That volume is intended to “give[] direct marketers advice on how to assure their business
`practices comply with” the Ethical Guidelines. Do the Right Thing at 2.
`55.
`In Do the Right Thing, DMA elaborates on Article #2 of its ethical principles. It
`states, “Keep in mind that a disclaimer or disclosure alone usually is not enough to remedy a
`misleading or false claim.”
`56. By not stating on the page where consumers were given the option to leave a tip that
`the tips were used to subsidize DoorDash’s guaranteed minimum payments and that part or all of
`the tips did not provide a financial benefit to the Dashers, DoorDash violated the ethical principle
`in DMA’s Article #2 because this page did not contain all the essential points of the offer. It
`omitted the point that the tips were used to subsidize the guaranteed minimum payments and relied
`on a purported disclaimer that was included on a different web page.
`57.
`In July 2018, DMA (then going by the name “Data & Marketing Association”) was
`acquired by the Association of National Advertisers (“ANA”), “one of the oldest and most
`venerated trade association in the marketing industry.” ANA adopted DMA’s Ethical Guidelines,
`which it publishes on its web site as Part II of its Member Principles under the heading,
`“Marketing.” Thus, these ethical principles are still current and applicable.
`2.
`AMA Statement of Ethics
`58.
`The American Marketing Association (“AMA”) “commits itself to promoting the
`highest standard of professional ethical norms and values ...” Exhibit J. As such, it has published
`its “Statement of Ethics.” Id. AMA states that “marketers are expected to embrace the highest
`professional ethical norms and the ethical values implied by our responsibility toward multiple
`stakeholders (e.g., customers ...).” Id. Thus, the Statement of Ethics contains “Ethical Norms,”
`which “are established standards of conduct that are expected and maintained by society and/or
`professional organizations.” Id.
`/ / /
`
`
` 12 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 13 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`59.
`The AMA’s Ethical Norms state that marketers must “consciously avoid[] harmful
`actions and omissions,” “striv[e] for good faith and fair dealing,” “avoid[] deception in ... pricing,
`communication, and delivery of distribution,” and affirm “core values” of honesty, ... fairness
`[and] transparency.”
`60. By not stating on the page where consumers were given the option to leave a tip that
`the tips were used to subsidize DoorDash’s guaranteed minimum payments and that part or all of
`the tips did not provide a financial benefit to the Dashers, DoorDash violated these Ethical Norms
`because, among other reasons, it did not strive (or achieve) good faith and fair dealing, did not
`avoid deception in communication and did not affirm the core values of honesty, fairness and
`transparency.
`61.
`The AMA has also published “Ethical Values,” which “represent the collective
`conception of what communities find desirable, important and morally proper.” Id. AMA states
`that marketers’ Ethical Values include honesty, meaning “[s]triv[ing] to be truthful in all situations
`and at all times” and “[h]onoring our explicit and implicit commitments and promises.”
`62. Another Ethical Value, according to the AMA, is fairness, which includes
`“[r]epresent[ing] products in a clear way in selling, advertising and other forms of
`communication,” “avoid[ing] false, misleading and deceptive promotion,” and “[r]efusing to
`engage in ‘bait-and-switch’ tactics.” Id.
`63. Yet another Ethical Value, according to the AMA, is “Transparency,” which
`includes “[s]triv[ing] to communicate clearly with all constituencies.” Id.
`64. By not stating on the page where consumers were given the option to leave a tip that
`the tips were used to subsidize DoorDash’s guaranteed minimum payments and that part or all of
`the tips did not provide a financial benefit to the Dashers, DoorDash violated these Ethical Values,
`because, among other reasons, it was not truthful (to say nothing of not striving to be truthful) in
`all situations, did not represent their products and policy in a clear way, did not avoid false,
`misleading and deceptive promotion, engaged in a “bait-and-switch” tactic, and did not
`communicate clearly.
`/ / /
`
`
` 13 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 14 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`D. DoorDash’s Scheme Originated and Was Directed from California.
`65. On information and belief, DoorDash made the decisions and took the actions that
`violated the UCL in California. This belief is based on the following:
`66. California is the center of DoorDash’s business operations. As set forth above, its
`headquarters is located in San Francisco.
`67. Most of DoorDash’s top executives are based out of California. This includes CEO
`Tony Xu15, Chief Technology Officer Andy Fang16, Chief Financial Officer Prabir Adarkar17,
`Chief Operating Officer Christopher Payne18, Chief Business and Legal Officer Keith Yandell19,
`Vice President of Finance Michael Kim20, Vice President of Product Management Rajat Shroff21,
`Vice President of Analytics & Data Science Jessica Lachs22, and HR Director Nathan Tanner23.
`68. Other high ranking DoorDash employees based out of California include Vice
`President Ravi Inukonda24, Vice President of Business Development A. Toby Espinosa25, Senior
`Manager of Marketing Strategy Lauren Reinhard26, Vice President of Legal Tia Sherringham27,
`and Head of Corporate Development Matthew Rotella28.
`69. On information and belief, DoorDash made its decisions regarding its tipping policy
`at its headquarters in San Francisco, where its CEO Mr. Xu and other executives are located. That
`
` 15 https://www.linkedin.com/in/xutony/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 16 https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-fang-5302b830/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 17 https://www.linkedin.com/in/prabir-adarkar-8b7b16/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 18 https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopherpayne/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 19 https://www.linkedin.com/in/keith-yandell-2a947432/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 20 https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelkimsf/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 21 https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajatshroff/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 22 https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-lachs/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 23 https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathantanner/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 24 https://www.linkedin.com/in/rinukonda/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 25 https://www.linkedin.com/in/a-toby-espinosa-b9458812/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 26 https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurenmaddoxreinhard/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 27 https://www.linkedin.com/in/tiasherringham/ (accessed 9/16/19).
` 28 https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewrotella84/ (accessed 9/16/19).
`
` 14 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06098 Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 15 of 203
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`belief is based, in part, on Mr. Xu’s tweets stating, as quoted above, “But it’s clear from recent
`feedback that we didn’t strike the right balance. We thought we were doing the right thing by
`making Dashers whole when a customer left no tip. What we missed was that some customers
`who *did* tip would feel like their tip did not matter.”
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`70.
`Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of themselves and as representatives of all
`others who are similarly situated. Pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3) of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seeks certification of a Nationwide Class, a Missouri Subclass
`and an Illinois Subclass (collectively, the “Class”).
`71.
`The nationwide Class is initially defined as follows:
`All consumers who placed a food delivery order
`through DoorDash who, within the applicable
`period of limitations preceding the filing of this
`lawsuit to the date of class certification, paid a tip
`to his or her driver through DoorDash’s website or
`app (the “Nationwide Class”).
`The Missouri Subclass is initially defined as follows:
`All consumers who, in the State of Missouri, placed
`a food delivery order through DoorDash and paid
`a tip to his or her driver through DoorDash’s
`website or app within the applicable period of
`limitations preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the
`date of class certification
`(the “Missouri
`Subclass”).
`The Illinois Subclass is initially defined as follows:
`All consumers who, in the State of Illinois, placed a
`food delivery or