Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")), as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level.

Changes in Internal Control

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended September 30, 2022 that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls and Procedures

Our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, do not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is also based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate. Due to inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Part II

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

We are currently involved in, and may in the future be involved in, legal proceedings, claims, regulatory inquiries, audits, and governmental investigations (collectively, “Legal Proceedings”) in the ordinary course of business, including suits by merchants, consumers, Dashers, or other third parties (individually or as class actions).

The outcomes of our Legal Proceedings are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. For some matters for which a material loss is reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses is not possible nor are we able to estimate the loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of nonmonetary remedies. Until the final resolution of Legal Proceedings, there may be an exposure to a material loss in excess of the amount recorded.

Independent contractor classification matters

We have in the past been, are currently, and may in the future be subject to claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, government investigations, and other legal and regulatory proceedings at the federal, state, and municipal levels challenging the classification of Dashers on our platform as independent contractors, and claims that, by the alleged misclassification, we have violated various labor and other laws that would apply to delivery employees. Laws and regulations that govern the status and classification of independent contractors are subject to change and divergent interpretations by various authorities, which can create uncertainty and unpredictability for us.

We are currently involved in a number of putative class actions, representative actions, such as those brought under California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and individual claims both in court as well as arbitration and other matters challenging the classification of Dashers on our platform as independent contractors. In January 2022, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, granted final approval of a revised settlement agreement pursuant to which we agreed to pay $100 million to the representatives of Dashers that had filed certain actions in California and Massachusetts in settlement of claims under PAGA and class action claims alleging worker misclassification of Dashers (the "Marko settlement"). All legal matters under the Marko settlement have been resolved and all amounts related to the Marko settlement were paid by us during the second quarter of 2022. See the section titled “Legal Proceedings” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 for additional information regarding the proceedings related to the Marko settlement.

Various other Dashers have challenged or threatened to challenge, and may challenge in the future, their classification on our platform, as an independent contractor under U.S. federal and state and international law, seeking monetary, injunctive, or other relief. We are currently involved in a number of such actions filed by individual Dashers, with many additional claims threatened, including those brought in, or compelled pursuant to our independent contractor agreement to, individual arbitration. In addition, in June 2020, the San Francisco District Attorney filed an action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, alleging that we misclassified California Dashers as independent contractors as opposed to employees in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law, among other allegations. This action is seeking both restitutionary damages and a permanent injunction that would bar us from continuing to classify California Dashers as independent contractors. It is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible range of losses is not estimable given the status of the case.

We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. Legal Proceedings related to these matters can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

We have been proactively working with state and local governments and regulatory bodies to ensure that our platform can continue to operate in the United States and foreign jurisdictions. New laws and regulations and changes to existing laws and regulations continue to be adopted, implemented, and interpreted in response to our industry and related technologies. For example, the California Legislature passed AB 5, which was signed into law in September 2019 and became effective in January 2020. AB 5 codified the standard in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Dynamex”) regarding contractor classification, expanded its application, and created numerous carve-outs. We, along with certain other companies, supported a campaign for a 2020 California ballot initiative titled Proposition 22 ("Proposition 22") to address AB 5 and preserve flexibility for California Dashers, which was approved by voters in November 2020 and went into effect in December 2020. However, in February 2021, petitioners consisting of a number of individuals and labor groups filed a writ of mandate petitioning the Alameda County Superior Court to compel the State of

California not to enforce any provisions of Proposition 22 as unconstitutional. In August 2021, after a merits hearing, the Alameda County Superior Court issued an order finding that the entirety of Proposition 22 is unenforceable. The California Attorney General, the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services coalition and individual sponsors of Proposition 22 have filed appeals in the California Court of Appeal. Proposition 22 remains in effect pending further court proceedings.

In addition, several other jurisdictions where we operate may be considering adopting legislation, or we may propose or support legislation, ballot initiatives, or other legislative processes, that would pair worker flexibility and independence with new protections and benefits, and we are engaged in ongoing discussions with Dashers, policy makers, and other stakeholders regarding the future of the type of work that Dashers perform. To the extent other jurisdictions adopt such legislation, or we propose or support legislation, ballot initiatives, or other legislative processes, we would expect our costs related to Dashers in such jurisdictions to increase and we could experience lower order volumes in such jurisdictions if we charge higher fees and commissions as a result of such laws, which would adversely impact our results of operations. Even with the passage of Proposition 22 and similar legislation, such initiatives and legislation could still be challenged and subject to litigation. Additionally, some jurisdictions are considering implementing standards similar to AB 5 to determine worker classification.

With the breadth of our geographic scope, the classification of Dashers that utilize our platform as independent contractors may be subject to challenge in other jurisdictions. In particular, through Wolt, we are subject to local regulations and challenges in Europe and Asia to the classification of Wolt courier partners as independent contractors. Further, in certain jurisdictions where there are uncertainties associated with the interpretation of applicable law, we may decide to adopt employment-based models, as Wolt already does in Germany, which could result in certain operational challenges and increased costs and cause us to withdraw from certain countries or decide not to expand our business in or into a certain jurisdiction, which could limit our growth and expansion opportunities.

Consumer protection and other actions

We have in the past been, are currently, and may in the future be involved in other Legal Proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including class action lawsuits and actions brought by government authorities, alleging violations of consumer protection laws, data protection laws, civil rights laws and other laws. In addition, we have been subject to Legal Proceedings related to representations regarding tips paid to Dashers and the former DoorDash Dasher pay model. We dispute any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

Intellectual property matters

We have in the past been, are currently, and may in the future be involved in Legal Proceedings related to alleged infringement of patents and other intellectual property and, in the ordinary course of business, we receive correspondence from other purported holders of patents and other intellectual property offering to license such property and/or asserting infringement of such property. We dispute any allegation of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

Regulatory and administrative investigations, audits, and inquiries

We have in the past been, are currently, and may in the future be the subject of regulatory and administrative investigations, audits, and inquiries conducted by federal, state, or local governmental agencies concerning our business practices, the classification and compensation of Dashers, DoorDash Dasher pay models, compliance with consumer protection laws, privacy, data security, tax issues, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, and other matters. For example, we are currently under audit by the Employment Development Department of the State of California for payroll tax liabilities. Results of investigations, audits, and inquiries and related governmental action are inherently unpredictable and, as such, there is always the risk of an investigation, audit, or inquiry having a material impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations, particularly in the event that an investigation, audit, or inquiry results in a lawsuit or unfavorable regulatory enforcement or other action. Regardless of the outcome, these matters can have an adverse impact on us in light of the costs associated with cooperating with, or defending against, such matters, and the diversion of management resources, and other factors.

Personal injury matters

We have in the past been, are currently, and may in the future be involved in Legal Proceedings where various parties may claim that we are liable for damages related to accidents or other incidents involving Dashers who have been active on our platform. We are currently named as a defendant in a number of matters related to accidents or other incidents involving Dashers that utilize our platform. In many of these matters, we believe we have meritorious defenses, dispute

the allegations of wrongdoing, and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. There is no pending or threatened legal proceeding that has arisen from these accidents or incidents that individually, in our opinion, is likely to have a material impact on our business, financial condition, or results of operations; however, results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to such accidents or incidents, in the aggregate, could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Regardless of the outcome, these matters can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, the diversion of management resources, and other factors.