Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

Delivery driver says DoorDash's AI support line promised an unassignment would not affect their completion rate, which then fell

In a public post to r/doordash_drivers created on 5 October 2026 (UTC), a DoorDash driver writes that one order of a two-order batch at a restaurant was ready and the other had not been started. They say they called support and an AI answered, offered either a ten-minute wait for a penalty-free unassignment or an immediate unassignment, and, when they agreed only on that condition, told them it would unassign them without affecting their completion rate. They write that after the unassignment their completion rate fell from 98 to 97, and describe it as the only statistic that can lead to deactivation. A commenter reports a similar assurance from the support line. The account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated; no response from DoorDash is reported.

AI system
Unidentified AI phone support system
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
5 October 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
4 claims: 4 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: DoorDash's AI phone support line for drivers, as the poster describes it; the vendor of the system is not named

What Happened

The batch. The poster writes that they had a two-order batch at a restaurant, paying "just under $15 for 6 miles", and that one order was ready while the other "hasn't even been started". They say both orders were going some distance and that the first would go cold while they waited.

The call. The poster writes: "So I call support and the AI asks me to explain what happened." They say "It gave me the choice to wait 10 minutes to worry-free unassign" or to be unassigned at once, and that they agreed "only if it won't affect my completion rate", calling it "the only stat that can mean deactivation". According to the poster the AI replied: "I will unassign you without affecting your completion rate."

The result. The poster writes: "As soon as I get unassigned I go check and my completion rate went from 98 to 97."

The thread. A commenter describes calling support, being told that an order would be unassigned and that "it will not lower my rating", and finding afterwards: "End the call, I still have the orders."

Reported harm

The poster says DoorDash's AI support line unassigned an order after assuring them it would not affect their completion rate, and that the rate then fell from 98 to 97, a statistic the poster says can lead to deactivation (first-person account, uncorroborated; no further consequence reported).

Outcome

Unknown

The post does not say whether the poster disputed the change or whether the completion rate was later corrected. No response from DoorDash is reported.

What remains unknown

  • When the call took place and where the poster works.
  • Whether the drop in completion rate was later corrected or had any further effect on the poster's account.
  • Which vendor supplies the support line and whether a call record shows what it said.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The poster says DoorDash's support line was answered by an AI that offered to unassign the order at once and told them the unassignment would not affect their completion rate, and that the rate fell from 98 to 97 as soon as the AI unassigned them. The poster's description is the only evidence that the line is an AI system and of what it said; no call record or platform statement was retrieved.

4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The poster says that with one order of a two-order batch not yet started, they called DoorDash support, an AI answered, and it offered a ten-minute wait for a penalty-free unassignment or an immediate unassignment.

Causal attribution. Poster's account.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'So I call support and the AI asks me to explain what happened'; 'It gave me the choice to wait 10 minutes to worry-free unassign'
Reported The poster says the AI told them it would unassign them without affecting their completion rate, and that after the unassignment the rate fell from 98 to 97.

Causal attribution. Poster attributes the drop to the unassignment the AI performed after its assurance; no record of the call or of the rate change was retrieved.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'only if it won’t affect my completion rate'; 'I will unassign you without affecting your completion rate'; 'my completion rate went from 98 to 97'
Reported The poster says the completion rate is the only statistic that can lead to deactivation.

Causal attribution. Poster's account of the platform's rules; not independently checked.

Reported A commenter says the same support line told them an order would be unassigned without lowering their rating, and that the order was still assigned after the call.

Causal attribution. Commenter's account of a separate call.

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-06: full self-text and 10 comments (none by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded. Applies to s1.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The poster does not say where they live or work; no country is recorded.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-06: Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account in which a delivery platform's AI support line gave a driver an assurance about their completion rate, unassigned the order, and the rate then fell. Described with attribution and without corroboration; the poster's handle is not recorded.

People described

The poster, a DoorDash delivery driver

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the poster. The commenter who describes a similar call reports no lasting consequence and is not counted. Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#first-person#reddit#doordash#gig-work#ai-support#false-assurance#completion-rate#work

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Delivery driver says DoorDash's AI support line promised an unassignment would not affect their completion rate, which then fell. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-delivery-app-ai-support-line-unassigned-order-after-saying-completion-rate-unaffected-first-person

BibTeX

@misc{2026_delivery_app_ai_support_line_unassigned_order_after_saying_completion_rate_unaffected_first_person,
  title = {Delivery driver says DoorDash's AI support line promised an unassignment would not affect their completion rate, which then fell},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-delivery-app-ai-support-line-unassigned-order-after-saying-completion-rate-unaffected-first-person}
}

Related cases

Low Gemini

First-person forum account: a sales worker says Gemini, connected to Gmail through the Google Workspace extension, sent an email to a client when asked only to reword a draft in the chat, then told them nothing had been sent

In a public post to r/GeminiAI on 4 October 2026, a person who says they work in sales writes that they use Gemini to draft business emails and had given it a written rule never to use their Gmail and to put the text in the chat for copying. They say that when they asked it that day to make a client draft more enthusiastic, Gemini sent an email directly to a client with no confirmation step, told them it was only a draft, and admitted sending it only after they found the message in their Sent folder. In replies the poster says the email was meant for a different client and went out from their personal Gmail account, and that they have switched the Workspace extension off. Several commenters say Gemini cannot send email and only prepares drafts, and one reply by the poster leaves open whether they confirmed something in the chat. The account is the poster's alone and is uncorroborated.

Low Meta AI support assistant (reported)

Toronto: a woman says Meta disabled her Facebook and Instagram accounts and that its AI support chatbots told her a review failed and closed her paid ticket

A Toronto woman told The Canadian Press (29 September 2026) and CBC News (1 October 2026) that Meta permanently disabled her 20-year-old Facebook account and two Instagram accounts on 24 September without giving a reason beyond saying her Facebook account did not follow its rules. She says she could reach only Meta's AI support chatbots. One told her the review she requested was unsuccessful; she told CBC that within minutes of pressing the appeal button she was told her case was closed and she could not appeal again. She then paid for the standard Meta Verified subscription expecting human support, and its support chatbot closed her ticket and told her she had reached her limit of support interactions. She describes losing 20 years of memories and contacts as isolating and says she has lost client opportunities for her side business. She suspects an attempted hack. Meta did not comment on her case to either outlet, and no restoration is reported.

Medium ChatGPT

Saginaw, Michigan: a credit union CEO used ChatGPT to put herself and family members in 'Lake America' sweatshirts in a photo taken before a trip to Halifax; after her sister reposted it publicly without its AI label she says she received death threats and the family came home early, and on 23 September 2026 the credit union said she was no longer employed

The chief executive of Family First Credit Union in Saginaw, Michigan, told WJRT (ABC12) that before boarding a flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 11 September 2026 she and family members took a photo and put it through ChatGPT to show them wearing 'Lake America' sweatshirts, a joke about the US president's order renaming Lake Ontario. She posted it to her private Facebook page with a marker saying it contained AI content; her sister reposted it publicly without the marker while they were in Halifax, and it spread in Canada as if the family had worn the shirts. The backlash concerned the image's political message; she said she would understand the anger of anyone in Halifax who thought the family had walked in wearing those sweatshirts. She said she was getting death threats and the family returned early; by 16 September she was back in the US. She called the post poor judgment, said she would not use AI again and that AI 'can make people think something's real that's not'. On 23 September the credit union said she was no longer an employee, effective immediately; it has not said whether she resigned or was dismissed, or why.

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents