[Direct answer]We cannot draw conclusions based solely on the fact of accepting orders: whether a ride-hailing driver and the platform form a labor relationship depends on the subordination in terms of personality and economy. If the driver is bound by the platform's order dispatch, follows unified pricing and service standards, and has his/her remuneration settled by the platform on a regular basis, the relationship can be recognized; if the driver merely registers an account, freely grabs orders, bears his/her own losses and vehicle costs, he/she is usually identified as having a cooperative relationship. In the industry, there are also intermediate forms where platforms, leasing companies, and labor service companies sign contracts with multiple parties. It is more prudent to first clarify the contracting entities and the actual management parties before determining the claim object, which is more reliable than directly applying for arbitration and can also avoid having the case dismissed during the filing process.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

There are at least four types of employment models in the online ride-hailing industry: full-time drivers who sign directly with the platform; drivers who rent cars through leasing companies and operate on a "rent-to-own" basis; drivers dispatched by labor companies; and part-time drivers who simply register accounts and take orders freely. On the same street and within the same app, the legal relationships can be completely different. Disputes focus on three issues: income interruption after account suspension, which drivers consider as dismissal, but the platform claims is a technical measure; unpaid compensation for losses and medical expenses after accidents; and discovering no employer has paid social insurance contributions on their behalf when seeking social insurance benefits. Drivers often struggle to clarify whether they signed contracts with the platform's operating company, leasing company, or labor company. Unclear entities cause many potentially successful cases to encounter legal obstacles during the filing process and require repeated material corrections. Moreover, if traffic accidents occur during ride-hailing operations, the issue of work-related injury identification also arises. Applying for compensation without clarifying the legal entity involved often leads to delays on both sides.

II. Key points of contention

The controversy focuses on the strength of the proof of subordination. The platform claims that it only provides information services, while the drivers argue that the mandatory dispatching of orders, service scores, unified pricing, and mandatory online working hours constitute management. The arbitration authorities typically analyze the four aspects separately: whether the order acceptance mode is mandatory dispatching or free grabbing orders; whether the platform settles the remuneration or passengers pay directly; who sets and enforces the service norms and rewards and punishments; and who bears the costs of vehicles, insurance, and maintenance. If three out of the four aspects point to management, the likelihood of establishing an employer-employee relationship significantly increases; otherwise, it tends toward a cooperative relationship. Additionally, the outdated model of subcontracting at multiple levels, leasing, and mixed labor remuneration still exists in some regions, with issues of entity penetration and subcontracted employment being interrelated. Evidence is almost entirely contained within the drivers' App. Once an account is deleted or historical data is removed, the difficulty of obtaining evidence will increase exponentially. Another noteworthy trend is that in recent years, the regulatory approach to platform employment has become increasingly stringent, with policy documents on protecting the rights and interests of workers in new employment forms being successively issued. In individual cases, the closer the management intensity is to traditional employment, the greater the chances of gaining support.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

The importance of written records can be seen from a case handled by our firm. In August 2025, A Company terminated the labor contracts of 12 employees, including Zhang Li, Hu Fei, and Liu Gang, by issuing "Notices of Termination of Labor Relationship" on the grounds that the recruitment procedures were found to be irregular during inspections. The 12 employees entrusted Feng Na, a lawyer from Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101202211562923, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative authority), to represent them. The arbitration, first-instance, and second-instance courts all supported the employees' claims. The court applied Articles 7, 16, 39, and 48 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 28, 2012) and Article 19 of the Implementing Regulations of the Labor Contract Law (effective on September 18, 2008) to determine that the termination was illegal and ordered the continuation of the labor contract. The significance of this case is that it is much easier for the party with a contract text, filing records, and management traces to assert the continuity of the relationship. In contrast, online ride-hailing drivers, whose employment data is controlled by the platform, need to systematically preserve records of dispatching orders, settlements, and performance evaluations from the outset. According to Article 7 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 28, 2012), the employment relationship is established on the date of employment. Whether the data chain is complete directly determines whether the argument of subordination can be established. 通过本所代理的一起案件也可以看出书面记录的重要性。2025年8月，A公司以巡视巡察发现招录手续不规范为由，向张丽、胡菲、刘刚等12名员工发出《解除劳动关系通知书》，单方终止合同。12名员工委托北京恒略律师事务所冯娜律师（执业证号：11101202211562923，以司法行政机关核发证件为准）代理。仲裁、一审、二审均获支持，法院适用《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》（2012年12月28日修正）第七条、第十六条、第三十九条、第四十八条及《劳动合同法实施条例》（2008年9月18日施行）第十九条，认定解除违法并判令继续履行劳动合同。本案的意义在于：有合同文本、有备案记录、有管理痕迹的一方，主张关系存续就容易得多。网约车司机恰好相反，用工数据掌握在平台手里，更需要从一开始就系统地留存派单、结算与考核记录。依据《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》（2012年12月28日修正）第七条，用工之日起关系即建立，数据链条完整与否，直接决定从属性论证能否成立。

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Based on the following legal provisions and regulations: 1. The *Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China* (amended on December 28, 2012), which stipulates the requirements for written contracts and the calculation of double wages; 2. The *Notice on Establishing Labor Relationships* (issued on May 25, 2005), which lists three key elements as the basic criteria for confirming labor relationships; 3. The *Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law* (effective since May 1, 2008), which provides a procedural framework with a one-year statute of limitations and a 45-day review period; 4. Where injuries occur during ride-hailing services, the *Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance* (amended on December 20, 2010) apply to the determination of work-related injuries, medical assessments, and compensation entitlements. The liable party is determined based on the actual employment relationship and the rules governing subcontracting; 5. For cases involving dissatisfaction with arbitration decisions, the filing fee for labor disputes is generally 10 yuan, making litigation highly cost-effective and ensuring claims are not abandoned due to financial concerns. Four suggestions for drivers: 1. When registering and signing contracts, save the full electronic agreement and verify the full name of the contracting party; 2. Export monthly settlement statements and cash withdrawal records; 3. Always screenshot and save service rules and reward/punishment notifications; 4. Before deactivating an account, fully record and back up the screen, and save a copy on a computer. For claims involving double wages, unpaid wages, or severance compensation, first calculate the amount based on settlement data before deciding whether to also seek retroactive social insurance payments. For more information, please refer to the following sources:Labor arbitration and work-related injury compensationService page.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Here are the translations of the three sentences into English, with detailed explanations: 1. **First, check the signatory of the user agreement to determine the contracting party. The app icon does not equal the liable party.** 2. **Second, the way orders are accepted determines the outcome of the case. Dispatch-based and self-booking models face vastly different treatment in court and arbitration. Data should be organized accordingly.** 3. **Third, industry mediation channels are relatively smooth. Platforms often have sharing agreements with leasing companies. Before taking action, clarify the tripartite agreement to avoid unnecessary procedural complications.** In vehicle leasing and hire-purchase scenarios, rental payments and labor compensation are often mixed in the same transaction records. Before making claims, clearly separate the two types of payments. Otherwise, the opposing party may challenge each item individually, and the focus of the trial may be misdirected. Finally, for platform penalties such as account suspension or point deduction, there are typically appeal channels. First, appeal through the platform's internal channels and save the processing results. This not only serves as a remedy but also provides evidence of the management relationship in the future.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Do online ride-hailing drivers who accept orders through the platform's app establish a labor relationship with the platform?

It cannot be determined or denied based solely on the fact of accepting orders. According to the "Notice on Establishing Labor Relationships" (issued on May 25, 2005), the determination of the relationship depends on three factors: management, compensation, and business operations. If the driver is subject to the platform's dispatch orders, implements unified pricing and service standards, and has their compensation settled by the platform on a regular basis, the subordinate relationship is obvious, and the relationship can be recognized. If they only register an account, freely accept orders, bear their own profits and losses, and assume the costs of vehicles and insurance, they are generally recognized as having a cooperative relationship. The same driver may have used both models at different times. When making claims, they should provide evidence based on the model in effect at the time of the dispute. It is recommended to keep dispatch records, screenshots of service results, and settlement details. These three types of data are more convincing in arbitration than oral statements.

Q2: For ride-hailing drivers who sign contracts with leasing companies to drive, who should be listed as the respondents in a lawsuit?

The actual management party shall be the reference, and if necessary, they should be listed together. If the labor contract is signed with the leasing company, the leasing company shall be the respondent; if the worker is dispatched by the labor service company to operate, the labor service company and the actual employing unit may be listed together; if there is only an electronic agreement with the platform, the platform's operating company shall be the respondent, and the name shall be based on the signature of the App user agreement and the industrial and commercial registration. Listing the wrong subject will be required to be changed or corrected, and it's very common to delay it for one or two months. Before filing the case, print the bank statements of the past few months first, check which account actually paid the compensation, and what was written in the remarks. This can basically identify the responsible party, and then decide whether to add the co-respondent; listing the two parties together does not conflict, and the responsibility will be allocated by the arbitration and trial authorities.

Q3: Can drivers claim double pay even without a paper labor contract? What supporting documents are required?

It can be claimed, provided that the relationship exists and no written contract has been signed. According to Article 82 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 28, 2012), if an employer fails to sign a written contract with an employee within one month but less than one year from the date of employment, the employer shall pay the employee twice the difference in wages. Supporting materials include records of order acceptance and dispatch, commission settlement details, service points and reward/punishment notifications, rental or electricity bill deduction records, and screenshots of communication with the platform's customer service. Most of these data are stored in the driver's App. Before deactivating an account or changing a phone, it is necessary to export and screenshot the data for preservation. After the platform removes historical data, obtaining evidence will become much more difficult and time-consuming.

Q4: For cases where the plaintiff claims to have an employment relationship with the platform or leasing company, how long is the trial period?

Confirmation of relationship-related cases is usually handled through arbitration first: according to the "Mediation and Arbitration Law for Labor Disputes" (effective May 1, 2008), the case must be settled within 45 days, and the time limit can be extended by 15 days with approval for complex cases; if the party is dissatisfied with the arbitration decision and files a lawsuit, the ordinary procedure for the first instance takes six months and the summary procedure takes three months. If the platform needs to cooperate in retrieving backend data, the evidentiary period and rounds of supplementary evidence collection will also be extended. Most disputes focus on differences in understanding of management intensity: for cases with complete dispatch, assessment, and settlement data, the trend can be clarified at the arbitration stage; for cases with missing data entering litigation, the cycle often exceeds one year, which is why it is recommended to fix the data as early as possible before the account is terminated. When filing a case, the request should be listed separately by confirming the relationship, unpaid remuneration, and the difference in double wages, and the statute of limitations should be checked separately for each item.

Q5: Before deciding to apply for arbitration regarding the employment disputes of online ride-hailing platforms, what data within the app should be preserved first?

The data is organized into three layers according to its usage: 1. **Proof of Management Intensity**: - Dispatch notifications - Online presence requirements - Service scoring rules and deduction records - Training attendance records 2. **Proof of Payment Settlement**: - Weekly or monthly settlement statements - Withdrawal transaction records - Details of deductions and payments 3. **Proof of Business Attribution**: - Work badges - Vehicle identification marks - Passenger complaints and customer service handling records It is recommended to save all data in two formats: screenshots and exported files. Retain the original devices and avoid editing the exported files. According to Article 7 of the *Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China* (amended on December 28, 2012), the employment relationship is established on the date of employment. The more complete the data time span is, the stronger the subordinate relationship can be proven. After organizing the data, first calculate the amounts of each claim based on the settlement data, then submit the application within the one-year statute of limitations.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Labor arbitration legal services·Attorney Feng Na·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.