Uber, Lyft, DoorDash can continue to classify drivers as contractors in California

Image Credits: Getty Images

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Proposition 22 — the ballot measure that passed in November 2020 and classified app-based gig workers as independent contractors rather than employees — is here to stay. 

The decision is a win for app-based companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart, which have fought hard to maintain their business models that rely on gig workers to give passengers on-demand rides and deliver food and other goods. 

“Whether drivers or couriers choose to earn just a few hours a week or more, their freedom to work when and how they want is now firmly etched into California law, putting an end to misguided attempts to force them into an employment model that they overwhelmingly do not want,” Uber said in a blog post. 

Lyft has published a similar sentiment in its own post, saying that more than 80% of California drivers surveyed said Prop 22 had been good for them.

While opponents of Prop 22 can technically still petition the court to reexamine the Supreme Court’s decision, this ruling resolves a long back-and-forth in the courts surrounding gig worker classifications in California. 

A year after 58% of California voters voted for Prop 22, a superior court judge ruled that initiative unconstitutional and therefore “unenforceable.” Judge Frank Roesch said at the time that Prop 22 limited the state legislature’s authority and ability to pass future legislation.

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling found that, on the contrary, classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors doesn’t conflict with the California Constitution’s provision granting the Legislature authority over workers’ compensation. This upholds a California appeals court decision in March 2023 to overturn Roesch’s ruling.

Proposition 22 was Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart’s answer to Assembly Bill 5, a state law that would have required the companies to classify those workers as employees, entitling them to a minimum wage, workers’ compensation and other benefits. 

Collectively, the companies spent over $200 million in advertising to convince drivers and California voters that Prop 22 was in their best interest.

Those app-based companies built entire business models on the assumption that they wouldn’t have to pay for health insurance, sick leave and other services provided to full-time employees. Their asset-light models, which rely on gig workers using their own vehicles to take passengers on rides and deliver food, are at the core of each company’s goal to keep capital expenditures low and to scale far and wide. 

Prop 22 sought to find a middle ground of sorts between providing workers employment and keeping them as unsupported contractors. Per Prop 22, workers are eligible to earn 120% of state minimum wage for hours worked plus 30 cents per engaged mile, adjusted for inflation after 2021. (Uber, Lyft and DoorDash actually failed to adjust for inflation, and last year ended up having to reimburse gig workers millions for unpaid vehicle expenses.) 

However, that so-called minimum wage only applies when a worker is actively engaged in a gig and doesn’t reimburse drivers for time spent waiting for one. The companies rely on workers to be hanging out and ready to accept a gig so that they can maintain their reputation of offering on-demand service. 

Critics have argued that the earnings guarantees fall short of actually giving drivers minimum wage after factoring in work-related expenses like car maintenance, gas and insurance. 

“Again and again, drivers are paid less than half of what Uber and Lyft passengers are charged, even as those prices and these companies’ profits keep on going up and up,” said ride-hail driver Alejandro Partida during a Rideshare Drivers United Facebook Live event. “The California Supreme Court decision makes it clear that California legislators must take action … Ride-share drivers are entitled to protection at work, just like any other worker, from a minimum wage to job security, unemployment protections and health and safety.”

Prop 22 also offers healthcare subsidies to drivers who work a certain number of hours per week, but drivers have told TechCrunch that it’s difficult to qualify for those subsidies. Drivers have to work 15 active hours per week for half the stipend and 25 active hours per week for the full stipend, according to Sergio Avedian, a contributor for The Rideshare Guy, a media property for gig workers. 

Avedian said the Supreme Court’s ruling means “the hunger games continue.” He has accused the companies of using the minimum wage guarantee to keep driver fares as low as is legally required. 

“The minimum earnings guarantee is also the ceiling now via opaque algorithms,” Avedian told TechCrunch, noting that Prop 22’s enshrined place in California law will embolden Uber and other companies to “push the playbook all over the country.”

Other benefits, like accident insurance, disability payments and death benefits, are available to workers as long as they are on the job when they’re injured. So if a driver is waiting for a gig with the app turned on — rather than actively driving to pick up a passenger and drop them off, for example — and is injured or killed, they wouldn’t be eligible for those benefits. 

Labor rights activists and app-based companies have been fighting in other states besides California. Last month, Uber and Lyft agreed to adopt a $32.50 hourly minimum pay standard for drivers in Massachusetts and to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit by the state’s attorney general alleging they improperly treated drivers as independent contractors. 

In New York City, apps have to pay delivery workers $19.56 an hour — as of April — for time spent on the app and not just actively performing a delivery. App-based companies, like Uber Eats, DoorDash and Grubhub, have argued that a higher wage mandate would harm the end consumer after those companies offloaded the extra costs to customers.  

Uber and Lyft drivers in Minnesota won higher pay in May after the state passed a law that makes drivers entitled to earn at least $1.28 per mile and $0.31 per minute. 

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated that the Supreme Court’s decision can be appealed. Opponents of Prop 22 can petition the court to revise their ruling.

This article has been updated to include statements from Uber, Lyft and gig workers, as well as more context about gig worker fights across the country. It was originally published at 10:35 a.m. PT.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash can continue to classify drivers as contractors in California

Image Credits: Getty Images

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Proposition 22 — the ballot measure that passed in November 2020 and classified app-based gig workers as independent contractors rather than employees — is here to stay. 

The decision is a win for app-based companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart, which have fought hard to maintain their business models that rely on gig workers to give passengers on-demand rides and deliver food and other goods. 

“Whether drivers or couriers choose to earn just a few hours a week or more, their freedom to work when and how they want is now firmly etched into California law, putting an end to misguided attempts to force them into an employment model that they overwhelmingly do not want,” Uber said in a blog post. 

Lyft has published a similar sentiment in its own post, saying that more than 80% of California drivers surveyed said Prop 22 had been good for them.

While opponents of Prop 22 can technically still petition the court to reexamine the Supreme Court’s decision, this ruling resolves a long back-and-forth in the courts surrounding gig worker classifications in California. 

A year after 58% of California voters voted for Prop 22, a superior court judge ruled that initiative unconstitutional and therefore “unenforceable.” Judge Frank Roesch said at the time that Prop 22 limited the state legislature’s authority and ability to pass future legislation.

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling found that, on the contrary, classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors doesn’t conflict with the California Constitution’s provision granting the Legislature authority over workers’ compensation. This upholds a California appeals court decision in March 2023 to overturn Roesch’s ruling.

Proposition 22 was Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart’s answer to Assembly Bill 5, a state law that would have required the companies to classify those workers as employees, entitling them to a minimum wage, workers’ compensation and other benefits. 

Collectively, the companies spent over $200 million in advertising to convince drivers and California voters that Prop 22 was in their best interest.

Those app-based companies built entire business models on the assumption that they wouldn’t have to pay for health insurance, sick leave and other services provided to full-time employees. Their asset-light models, which rely on gig workers using their own vehicles to take passengers on rides and deliver food, are at the core of each company’s goal to keep capital expenditures low and to scale far and wide. 

Prop 22 sought to find a middle ground of sorts between providing workers employment and keeping them as unsupported contractors. Per Prop 22, workers are eligible to earn 120% of state minimum wage for hours worked plus 30 cents per engaged mile, adjusted for inflation after 2021. (Uber, Lyft and DoorDash actually failed to adjust for inflation, and last year ended up having to reimburse gig workers millions for unpaid vehicle expenses.) 

However, that so-called minimum wage only applies when a worker is actively engaged in a gig and doesn’t reimburse drivers for time spent waiting for one. The companies rely on workers to be hanging out and ready to accept a gig so that they can maintain their reputation of offering on-demand service. 

Critics have argued that the earnings guarantees fall short of actually giving drivers minimum wage after factoring in work-related expenses like car maintenance, gas and insurance. 

“Again and again, drivers are paid less than half of what Uber and Lyft passengers are charged, even as those prices and these companies’ profits keep on going up and up,” said ride-hail driver Alejandro Partida during a Rideshare Drivers United Facebook Live event. “The California Supreme Court decision makes it clear that California legislators must take action … Ride-share drivers are entitled to protection at work, just like any other worker, from a minimum wage to job security, unemployment protections and health and safety.”

Prop 22 also offers healthcare subsidies to drivers who work a certain number of hours per week, but drivers have told TechCrunch that it’s difficult to qualify for those subsidies. Drivers have to work 15 active hours per week for half the stipend and 25 active hours per week for the full stipend, according to Sergio Avedian, a contributor for The Rideshare Guy, a media property for gig workers. 

Avedian said the Supreme Court’s ruling means “the hunger games continue.” He has accused the companies of using the minimum wage guarantee to keep driver fares as low as is legally required. 

“The minimum earnings guarantee is also the ceiling now via opaque algorithms,” Avedian told TechCrunch, noting that Prop 22’s enshrined place in California law will embolden Uber and other companies to “push the playbook all over the country.”

Other benefits, like accident insurance, disability payments and death benefits, are available to workers as long as they are on the job when they’re injured. So if a driver is waiting for a gig with the app turned on — rather than actively driving to pick up a passenger and drop them off, for example — and is injured or killed, they wouldn’t be eligible for those benefits. 

Labor rights activists and app-based companies have been fighting in other states besides California. Last month, Uber and Lyft agreed to adopt a $32.50 hourly minimum pay standard for drivers in Massachusetts and to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit by the state’s attorney general alleging they improperly treated drivers as independent contractors. 

In New York City, apps have to pay delivery workers $19.56 an hour — as of April — for time spent on the app and not just actively performing a delivery. App-based companies, like Uber Eats, DoorDash and Grubhub, have argued that a higher wage mandate would harm the end consumer after those companies offloaded the extra costs to customers.  

Uber and Lyft drivers in Minnesota won higher pay in May after the state passed a law that makes drivers entitled to earn at least $1.28 per mile and $0.31 per minute. 

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated that the Supreme Court’s decision can be appealed. Opponents of Prop 22 can petition the court to revise their ruling.

This article has been updated to include statements from Uber, Lyft and gig workers, as well as more context about gig worker fights across the country. It was originally published at 10:35 a.m. PT.

How resilient SaaS startups continue to build and scale in an era of efficiency

illustration of faces in a cloud with a maze overlapping the image

Image Credits: Roy Scott / Getty Images

Christine Edmonds

ContributorChristine Edmonds is a General Partner at ICONIQ Growth. She was the founding member and now leads the ICONIQ Growth Analytics team, supporting our portfolio companies with quantitatively backed advisory and thought leadership. Christine also helps oversee internal applications of data analytics to support and enable our broader investing platform.

Building a high-growth SaaS company is never easy, but founders who are feeling like the job is more challenging than ever aren’t imagining things — economic shifts over the past two years have profoundly impacted the landscape.

In 2023, SaaS companies’ year-over-year growth rate plummeted to its lowest point in the past five years. As a result, organizations scrambled to secure their financial footing through hiring freezes and RIFs, optimizing toolset utilization, and introducing performance management initiatives. However, finding the thin line between managing costs while continuing to fuel growth is highly nuanced, requiring an evolved approach to monitoring and measuring business health.

When cost-cutting isn’t practical, it becomes clear that more creative changes are needed to right the ship. Adapting to this new reality requires the industry to reassess how to measure success and what to measure. Traditional success metrics like the Rule of 40 and Magic Number must be revised amid an unpredictable and competitive market.

But if the old playbook no longer applies, how can companies benchmark their performance for our new normal? As head of analytics at ICONIQ Growth, I have spoken to and surveyed nearly 100  SaaS companies and analyzed more than 10 years of their operating and financial data that is not available to the general public. These companies span from $1 million ARR to post-IPO, providing the most transparent view of the SaaS industry at every stage.

What we learned could fill a book (and indeed, our Topline Growth and Operational Efficiency report spans nearly 70 pages of insights). Still, we felt it was important to summarize some of the fundamental shifts in strategy that SaaS companies should consider adopting in 2024 to unlock growth and new industry benchmarks that will help these teams get a more accurate picture of how their performance stacks up in today’s environment.

Reassessing pricing models to unlock growth

Traditional licensing and seat-based pricing have long been the go-to model for SaaS companies. While this approach may serve most companies well at first, it could mean leaving money on the table in the long run.

Our research shows that growth rate decreases as companies scale, with companies achieving high growth in the early parts of their life cycle thanks to signing on net new customers to add to a small but growing base. However, once companies reach ~$100 million ARR, expansion becomes the name of the game and the primary driver for growth.

Image Credits: ICONIQ Growth

With seat-based pricing, expansion is possible, but customers who are watching their spend will put off paying for additional seats and make do with their plans as long as possible. In this paradigm, teams must effectively resell their product to existing customers to grow.

This is why companies should question the status quo and consider newer pricing models like usage-based pricing (UBP), where appropriate (i.e., depending on product, target customer type, and sales motion). UBP has gained traction over the last five years, and it’s easy to see why. By basing pricing on usage instead of the traditional licensing or by-seat models, teams are encouraged to optimize efficiency.

UBP is also a strong choice due to its potential to streamline customer acquisition, provide a more predictable revenue stream, and enhance customer satisfaction by eliminating any sense of being “oversold.” This approach aligns with incentives, as pricing is based on value rather than seats.

In a side-by-side comparison, UBP models outperform subscriptions with ~200% YoY growth. That said, UBP is inherently volatile. While shifting away from subscriptions helps combat the decreasing growth rate, we expect significant fluctuations and much higher ranges in net dollar retention in parallel with market changes.

Image Credits: ICONIQ Growth

Setting new benchmarks for performance and resiliency

The hostile market and bevy of new tools mean old benchmarks and goalposts must better reflect what success means today. For example, one classic SaaS financial metric is the Rule of 40, which states that the combined revenue growth rate and profit margin should equal or exceed 40%, and startups that hit this metric sustainably generate a balance of growth and profitability.

This metric was the gold standard when it was coined in 2015, but market hostility and innovation in business efficiency means the Rule of 40 is no longer the relevant benchmark it used to be.

Today, we believe that the combined revenue growth rate and profit margin should now equal or exceed 60% — not 40% — to earn capital at a sustainable rate. Instacart’s and Klaviyo’s recent IPOs were clear case studies in this new paradigm, with an LTM rule of 53% and 66%, respectively, leading up to the IPO. With the rise of AI, processes that used to take weeks should now take mere days, and companies need to leverage these new strategies to catch up.

However, it’s more than just the Rule of 40 that needs to be reevaluated — while businesses still need to prioritize critical measures of health, including The ICONIQ Growth’s Enterprise Five: ARR growth, net dollar retention, Rule of 40, Net Magic Number, and ARR per FTE, there is a new framework for evaluating the success of your SaaS company — which we have coined the Resiliency Rubric.

One of the biggest challenges for companies navigating turbulent markets is getting a clear picture of what success looks like, so we’ve identified five key metrics — and provided the current industry benchmarks from SaaS peers — that can be used as a “Resiliency Rubric” to benchmark your company’s fortitude amid volatility: quick ratio, topline attainment, burn multiple, CAC payback, and productivity ratio.

Quick ratio

Quick ratio measures how efficiently a company grows by comparing bookings growth against contraction. As companies scale, the growth rate naturally slows while churn increases due to a growing customer base. This means that the quick ratio will naturally decrease. However, top-quartile companies can maintain a quick ratio above 4x even after reaching $100 million ARR. In other words, for every $1 of lost ARR, these companies add $4 in recurring revenue.

This metric can be particularly relevant for early-stage businesses where metrics like Rule of 60 are typically less applicable due to the speed of growth and aggressiveness. We found that top SaaS companies in the $50 million to $100 million ARR range had a quick ratio (gross new ARR/gross churned ARR) of 11x versus the industry average of 6x.

Topline attainment

One of the most critical measures of business predictability is topline attainment, which measures the actual dollars achieved each quarter against the original plan set at the beginning of the year. This metric becomes particularly critical as companies scale and approach IPO.

Companies should achieve 100% quarterly net new attainment of their topline plan, regardless of scale. Our research found that top performers have managed to stay in the 80% to 100% range regardless of scale in the current environment.

Image Credits: ICONIQ Growth

Burn multiple

The burn multiple measures the effectiveness of capital expenditures by comparing spend to the net new revenue being generated each quarter. In other words, how much is a company burning to generate each incremental dollar of recurring revenue?

During times of uncertainty, SaaS companies need to develop a leaner organizational muscle that favors efficiency and extends runway. We found that top SaaS companies in the $50 million to $100 million ARR range had a burn multiple (FCF/net new ARR) of 0.5x versus the industry average of 0.9x.

Image Credits: ICONIQ Growth

CAC payback

Customer acquisition cost (CAC) payback measures how long it takes to break even on acquiring a new customer and is an additional measure of sales efficiency. It is important to note that this metric will vary based on sales motion, customer segment, and other business model nuances.

Based on our analysis, we consider a CAC payback period of under 12 months to be exceptional; in today’s environment, where acquiring new customers has become much more challenging, we see CAC paybacks closer to 20 to 30 months as the average.

Image Credits: ICONIQ Growth

Productivity ratio

This metric looks at the ratio between the average ARR per FTE and average total OpEx (operating expenditure) per FTE; in other words, how much revenue is being generated per employee versus how much spend is being invested per employee. This measurement can help inform business decisions around hiring or reductions in force in times of uncertainty and highlights the trade-offs between headcount, revenue growth, and profitability.

As companies scale, the productivity ratio generally surpasses 1x, at which point the average ARR being generated per FTE starts to outpace total spend. This target of 1x+ usually becomes achievable and more relevant once companies get close to the $100 million ARR mark.

Companies with a productivity ratio under 1x may find it helpful to look at not only people costs (i.e., payroll, headcount, onshore vs. offshore mix), but also the direct investments in its workforce to improve productivity (i.e., L&D [learning and development], training, performance management).

Image Credits: ICONIQ Growth

The strategies employed by SaaS companies are constantly evolving, but market downturns serve as the proving grounds on which truly resilient business models are made. While knowing exactly how long a downturn will last is impossible, companies that can navigate this turbulence by fostering resilience, maximizing efficiency, and adapting their benchmarking metrics will be better positioned to capitalize on favorable market conditions and weather any future economic storms.

Full Glass Wine raises $14M to continue DTC marketplaces spree, buys Bright Cellars

Full Glass Wine, a brand acquisition management startup that specializes in acquiring wine marketplaces, has raised a $14 million Series A round to continue acquiring DTC (direct-to-consumer) wine marketplaces, aiming to lead the DTC wine market. 

DTC wine brands sell wine directly to wine lovers, bypassing traditional distribution channels

Full Glass Wine recently acquired Bright Cellars, a subscription-based wine service provider in Wisconsin, for an undisclosed price. The deal is its third acquisition in a year and will enable the startup to expand its subscription-based model. Previous acquisitions include Winc, a DTC wine platform that offers personalized recommendations and a subscription service, in June 2023; and Wine Insiders, a marketplace that curates a selection of high-quality wines from around the world at accessible prices, in October 2023.

“By uniting Winc, Wine Insiders, and Bright Cellars, we offer a one-stop shop for all things wine, catering to a wider range of wine drinkers than most traditional retailers, grocers, or single-brand DTC companies,” Neha Kumar, co-founder and COO of Full Glass Wine, told TechCrunch. “This comprehensive portfolio allows the company to optimize logistics for efficient delivery and leverage the power of established brands to create a powerful marketing platform.”

The company also intends to invest more in technology with the new capital. “Bright Cellars, our most recent acquisition, has developed a wine-pairing algorithm that learns from user preferences and ratings. This approach, similar to how platforms like Spotify and Netflix personalize content recommendations, allows us to create a more tailored experience for each customer,” Kumar said. “Our goal is to leverage data and AI to make personalized wine recommendations even more accurate and insightful, ensuring every customer discovers and enjoys wines they truly love.”

The DTC wine industry is brimming with potential but one of the hurdles is navigating the complex web of regulations across different states, according to Kumar.

“Ensuring a seamless customer experience, from discovery to delivery, requires constant innovation and focus,” she continued. “However, there are also some misconceptions consumers might have about DTC wine. Concerns about quality are addressed through partnerships with reputable vineyards and rigorous selection processes. Value is a consideration but we offer a range of price points to cater to diverse budgets. Perhaps the biggest challenge is the initial discovery process — finding the right wines can feel overwhelming. That’s where personalization comes in — we leverage data and technology to help consumers discover wines they’ll truly love.”

Full Glass Wine CEO Louis Amoroso and COO Neha Kumar. Image Credits: Full Glass Wine

Co-founded in 2023 by Louis Amoroso (CEO), a serial entrepreneur in the wine industry and former partner at Goose Island Beer Company, and Kumar (COO), a former managing director at New Money Ventures, the startup is open to exploring partnerships with businesses to expand its platform’s reach and offerings.

“It could involve collaborations with wineries, food delivery services, or event planners to create unique experiences for its customers directly within the platform,” Kumar continued.

The company is still working through the integration process to ensure a smooth transition for everyone involved after the recent acquisition.

“We’re looking at a total of at least a few dozen employees now at Full Glass Wine,” Kumar said. “There will be significant growth on our team, which [will] strengthen our combined expertise and allow us to offer a wider range of services to our customers.”

The startup did not provide the number of subscribers it has but said the acquisitions will help it generate more than $100 million in revenue in 2024. It plans to offer a diverse selection of over 400 SKUs and an accessible price range for customers; most bottles range from $12 to $25.

Shea Ventures led the Series A funding.

Bright Cellars lands more funding to personalize its subscription-based wines

Vivino raises $155 million for wine recommendation and marketplace app