Wolt Loses In Norwegian Court
09. February 2026Wolt Obliged To Offer Permanent Employment
Wolt has lost court cases in both Finland and Norway, yet has not changed its conduct towards delivery workers. The bicycle courier Espen Landgraff hopes that the lawsuit against Wolt will mark the end of the casualised labour system on which delivery companies such as Wolt are built.
Last year, Landgraff and two other bicycle couriers won their case against Wolt in the Oslo District Court, where they demanded permanent employment with the company. The court awarded them a total of nearly one million Norwegian kroner in back pay. Wolt, however, has refused to accept the ruling and has appealed.
A significant difference between employees and contractors
The Norwegian case dates back to 2024, when the couriers demanded to be classified as employees under labour legislation. As permanent employees, they would be entitled to holiday pay, pension contributions, overtime pay and sick leave.
At present, Wolt couriers are classified as independent contractors and must therefore bear responsibility for these rights themselves, along with all associated costs.
With the backing of Fellesforbundet, Norway’s largest trade union, Landgraff, Orlin Mitkov Ognyanov and Yechezkel Yehudah Dominitz decided to take the company to court. Landgraff maintains that Wolt exercises effective control over the couriers’ work, while shifting risk and costs onto them by classifying them as contractors.
‘We hope to finally obtain a definitive judgment confirming that it is no longer possible to circumvent labour laws and regulations with the stroke of a pen,’ Landgraff says.
A case with potential precedent-setting impact
Kristin Alsos, Director of Research at Fafo (the Fafo Research Foundation), which conducts labour market research in Norway, says that if the couriers are defined as employees, they will be entitled to full rights under labour law.
‘This could become an important precedent-setting ruling in a new sector and in these new forms of business organisation that have grown rapidly in recent years,’ Alsos says.
She believes that if the couriers succeed in the Court of Appeal (corresponding to Iceland’s Court of Appeal, Landsréttur), the ruling will primarily affect those bringing the case, but could also have broader implications if it establishes clear principles that other companies must take into account.
Not a unanimous ruling at district court level
In April last year, the Oslo District Court ruled in favour of the couriers. The court concluded that they should be regarded as permanent employees, with varying working hours. It also ordered payment of overtime, holiday pay and public holiday pay, in addition to compensation of NOK 25,000 to each claimant for non-pecuniary damage.
In total, the amount awarded came to nearly NOK 900,000.
The ruling was not unanimous, however, with two judges in favour and one dissenting. Wolt subsequently appealed the judgment, arguing that it was based on both an incorrect assessment of the evidence and an erroneous application of the law.
Wolt emphasises flexibility
Christian Kamhaug, Communications Director at Wolt Norway, says that the company welcomes the Court of Appeal’s consideration of the case. He emphasises that the majority of couriers wish to retain the flexibility and independence associated with contractor agreements.
‘Wolt remains committed to ensuring that couriers can choose when, where and how they work – on their own terms – while at the same time strengthening the benefits and protections available to them,’ Kamhaug says.
Could end up before the Supreme Court
In 2024, the definition of ‘employee’ in Norwegian labour law was strengthened through the introduction of a so-called presumption rule. This places the burden of proof on the contracting entity – in this case Wolt – to demonstrate that couriers are genuinely independent contractors rather than employees.
According to Alsos at Fafo, it is not unlikely that the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, depending on how clear the ruling from the Court of Appeal proves to be.
‘Given that this involves a relatively new form of business organisation and recent legislative changes, there may be a need for a final clarification from the Supreme Court,’ she says.
Source: FriFagbevegelse