Over the past few months, multiple complaints involving gig workers associated with platforms such as Blinkit, Uber and Rapido have surfaced online, briefly triggering outrage before fading away from public conversation.
But the incidents keep returning, raising uncomfortable questions around how gig platforms verify workers, handle complaints and protect customers in an ecosystem built around speed and scale.
Last week, a Delhi NCR-based woman in a Linkedin post alleged that a Blinkit delivery partner sexually harassed her after delivering a sexual wellness product to her home. According to the woman, the delivery executive questioned her about the order over a phone call before sexually harassing her.
The incident left her “frozen” not only because of the remark itself, but because, as she later wrote online, “this man knew exactly where I lived”.
The post quickly triggered an outrage online, with netizens questioning the fragile layer of trust underpinning the app-based convenience. The aftermath was no solace either.
Speaking to Inc42, the woman said Blinkit’s customer support team responded immediately to her complaint and later informed that the delivery executive had been fired. However, she added that the platform did little to address her concerns around any future safety issues. The question — What if this happens to me again? — continues to linger.
And the concern doesn’t solely concern Blinkit. Similar incidents across ride-hailing, ecommerce and quick commerce platforms have surfaced time and again over the past. Steadily, these have been adding to the growing public concerns around how India’s platform economy handles customer safety.
In another recent case, a Mumbai woman, in an Instagram video, alleged that an Uber driver slapped her after she refused to pay an additional ₹40 toll charge beyond the fare already paid through the app. In response, Uber is said to have temporarily blocked her account and sent responses on “driver safety”, triggering further online outrage.
What once appeared to be isolated incidents are now pointing to deeper cracks in India’s fast-growing gig economy. At the same time, the debate has moved beyond customer safety alone, raising larger questions around platform accountability, worker verification and regulatory oversight. So, where does the responsibility lie when it comes to such incidents?
The Accountability Question
While platforms are quick to remove erring gig workers when such incidents come to light, gig worker unions argue that platforms themselves cannot escape accountability for gaps in verification, onboarding and enforcement.
Speaking to Inc42, Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) president Shaik Salauddin urged platforms to bear responsibility for loopholes within the platform system, especially in ride-hailing services where identity mismatches and weak verification continue to remain a concern.
“The platform company is responsible for the loophole itself,” Salauddin said, questioning whether platforms are doing adequate background verification and enforcement checks before onboarding workers.
According to Salauddin, the issue is not limited to worker behaviour alone, but also stems from broader regulatory and operational gaps surrounding India’s rapidly expanding gig economy.
He argued that both governments and platforms need stronger enforcement frameworks, clearer accountability mechanisms and tighter verification systems at the time of onboarding to reduce such incidents.
The Onboarding Mess
Conversations with gig workers across ride-hailing and quick commerce platforms suggest that parts of onboarding and monitoring processes still remain loosely structured, with limited day-to-day oversight after registration.
While platforms do seek documentation like Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and driving licences at the time of onboarding, the process afterwards involves very little human interaction.
Many riders shared that peers often swap vehicles or use each other’s accounts informally when vehicles break down or someone is unavailable.
Then, there is the training issue. Many workers claim that very little behavioural or customer-safety training happens before workers begin interacting with customers. Instead, much of the training is limited to short instructional videos or app-based guidance.
On top of this, there is no common enforcement system across apps. “If a person is blacklisted, then he is working elsewhere,” one worker said, highlighting how workers removed from one platform can often continue operating elsewhere.
Meanwhile, platforms maintain that customer safety remains a priority, citing KYC checks, identity verification and driving licence validation.
In a statement shared with Inc42, Rapido said that it follows a “robust onboarding and verification process” and maintains a “zero-tolerance approach” towards misconduct, including harassment and assault. The company said complaints are investigated seriously, with strict action taken wherever necessary, including permanent removal from the platform.
Meanwhile, questions around onboarding plans and safety measures sent to Eternal, Uber, Swiggy and Zepto did not elicit any response at the time of publishing.
But beyond platform policies and operational challenges, legal experts argue the larger issue is the absence of a clear regulatory framework governing accountability in India’s gig economy.
The Regulatory Vacuum
Many legal experts Inc42 spoke with believe that India lacks a dedicated framework for gig economy that governs customer safety, worker verification and platform accountability.
Sohini Mandal, founder of Nilaya Legal, said that consumer protection remains scattered across criminal law, consumer protection regulations and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act instead of one codified framework specifically designed for platform work.
Verification standards, behavioural training and enforcement mechanisms also vary widely across platforms, with most safeguards still operating in a fragmented and largely self-regulated environment.
Harmeet Grover, founder of Aayati Legal, pointed to the fact that background checks remain voluntary and platform-driven without any standardised government audit mechanism. There is no uniform national standard for what ‘background verification’ constitutes.
However, Mandal noted that, since gig workers are treated as independent contractors rather than employees, fixing direct liability on platforms is more tricky. At the same time, experts argue that platforms cannot completely distance themselves from responsibility simply because workers are classified as contractors.
“There should be some due diligence by platforms because ultimately they are the ones hiring them,” said Karnika Seth, cyber law expert and Supreme Court lawyer.
She stressed that platforms should carry out stronger background checks and verification before onboarding workers who routinely gain access to customers’ homes, phone numbers and personal spaces.
Meanwhile, Grover argues that the current framework remains largely reactive instead of preventive. Many companies still rely heavily on reactive measures such as refunds, suspensions or blacklisting after incidents occur instead of building stronger preventive systems.
“The platform is answerable to the consumer because the contract is directly with the platform,” Seth said, adding that companies cannot shift the entire burden of safety and accountability onto users through terms and conditions.
Advocate and legal head Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) Delhi, Shivangi Sachdeva flagged the absence of any interoperable verification mechanism across apps to verify gig workers onboarded by the platforms. She questioned how workers removed from one platform can continue operating elsewhere without visibility into past complaints or misconduct allegations.
However, legal experts also acknowledged that any industry-wide blacklist or centralised database tracking worker misconduct would raise privacy and due process concerns, especially in cases where allegations remain unproven.
Instead, several experts suggested stricter reporting requirements, proper cross-checking of workers’ previous records, mandatory behavioural training, stronger complaint escalation systems and clearer compliance obligations for customer-facing gig platforms.
That said, the consensus among all critics remains that India’s gig economy is expanding faster than the safety, verification and accountability systems meant to govern it. But in an ecosystem built around speed, scale and convenience, can trust truly be guaranteed, or is safety becoming the cost of convenience?
The post The Hidden Safety Cost Of The Convenience Economy appeared first on Inc42 Media.
https://ift.tt/8PxVJC9
0 Comments