CEO Sues DoorDash After Raising Security Concerns About Unvetted Dashers, Unnecessary Photos

The CEO of a New York company that counts Mark Cuban among its investors is suing DoorDash over its security practices, including the prevalence of unvetted drivers and the capture of unnecessary photos, after her account was allegedly terminated when she raised concerns.

Phyllis Jager, CEO of technology company zuMedia Inc., based in Monroe, N.Y., filed the lawsuit in district court earlier this month alleging that DoorDash terminated her account in retaliation after she raised security concerns with the food delivery platform. Cuban, the company's major investor, is not involved in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, zuMedia "regularly feeds approximately 150 people each working day," including employees and contractors, and the company estimates it has spent approximately $2 million on DoorDash since 2021.

Jager says she formally notified DoorDash of security issues such as the presence of unvetted third parties with DoorDash delivery drivers, unvetted DoorDash drivers delivering under accounts belonging to other individuals, and unauthorized photography of the zuMedia premises by Dashers. Despite proposing collaborative solutions, Jager alleges that DoorDash retaliated by terminating her account on unfounded grounds of fraudulent credit card use.

In her lawsuit, Jager raises multiple concerns about DoorDash's security practices.

"DoorDash is only aware of the Dashers who are registered in its system to provide deliveries. The non-Dashers who may accompany Dashers are effectively invisible to DoorDash, as they are not monitored or recorded by DoorDash," the lawsuit alleges.

According to Jager, the presence of third parties accompanying Dashers on deliveries poses potential security risks.

"In addition, DoorDash does not exercise sufficient control over its Dashers to ensure they are the ones delivering the orders," the lawsuit alleges. "Jager repeatedly has had orders delivered by persons who clearly and visibly are not the Dasher identified by the application, e.g., the actual delivery person is of a different gender and/or overall general appearance than the Dasher which the application claims is delivering the order."

The lawsuit echoes numerous complaints seen on social media about delivery drivers frequently not matching the driver profiles seen on restaurant and grocery delivery apps. Complaints stem particularly from customers receiving orders from male drivers when an app shows a woman is supposed to be making the delivery.

The lawsuit also takes aim at DoorDash's policy of providing photo evidence that a delivery has been made. Jager alleges that the photos taken by Dashers often include locations and people unrelated to the delivery.

Dashers are "taking photographs of the vehicles that are located in the driveway of the offices — which driveway and vehicles are not immediately adjacent to the delivery location,” the lawsuit alleges. “Even the photographs showing the deliveries routinely record much more than the deliveries themselves, often needlessly depicting zuMedia’s employees, large areas of the Monroe office premises including, but not limited to, security systems such as door locks, key pads, smart doorbells, and cameras."

The lawsuit alleges the photos are "clearly unnecessary to the delivery process," and may even have a more sinister purpose.

"There is no reason for any of these types of photographs to be taken let alone retained following a delivery, but DoorDash has no known policy requiring Dashers to dispose of photographs (or to verify said disposal), or of requiring Dashers to engage in proper practices to avoid misuse regarding the taking and retention of the photographs," the lawsuit alleges.

The photos are "especially concerning to Jager" because "their more likely purpose is the surreptitious collection by Dashers and their accomplices of information about zuMedia’s premises and vehicles."

The court documents also allege that DoorDash does not have a policy regarding its retention and use of photographs of debit cards provided by its users. This is incredibly risky, because a person armed with a consumer’s debit card number has the ability to drain the consumer’s entire bank account if that person can determine the PIN associated with the debit card.