Demand for paid domestic and care workers is rising with the rise of demand for care services such as cooking, cleaning, and other services. It is attributed to the growing working professionals, middle class, the changing nature of the arrangement of the family and the ageing. However, lack of recognition of domestic workers within the prevailing social and legal environment effectively make them subject to perilous working conditions. The differential and intersecting composition of workers' identities such as gender and caste make them more vulnerable. The entry of DLPs promising formalisation of what has hitherto been conceived to be a part of the informal sector created an alternative. But, the claims of digital intermediaries need to be critically analysed as DLPs themselves are not regulated. This paper examines how the DLPs affect workers' choice and control, work-schedule, working conditions, and more importantly employment status. We employ mixed-method approach, combining desk-based research (secondary data sources and a web review of 8 digital labour platforms) with 28 in-depth interviews with women workers, and union members. We conducted this study in the city of Mumbai, a representative city of India. Our findings highlight the shifting dynamics of domestic and care work, as it is increasingly being taken over by digitally mediated model-based business. These platforms—whether subscription-based or on-demand —are characterised by a labour pool under monopsony labour market with unlimited supply of migrant labour drawn into that is predominantly from lower social strata. In-depth qualitative analysis using semi-structured interviews collected through dialogical process indicate that the conditions of work remain exploitative perpetuating servitude and indignity. Marginalised women, in particular, are compelled to accept such roles due to a lack of opportunities elsewhere, leaving them trapped in cycles of economic precarity. With growing popularity, the DLPs indeed capture the market due to easy entry and lack of alternatives for those who seek upward mobility. However, workers working are excluded from the purview of legal entitlements, and social protection. This largely happens due to systemic policy neglect of ‘workplace' lexicology and ‘worker centric jurisprudence'. It adds the burden of proof onto workers, when the workplace or access to it is through digital platforms, since they are purposefully kept outside the purview of regulatory compliance. Therefore, the future policy interventions must take into account the evolving landscape, ensuring that workers employed via digital platforms are also included in frameworks for employment security and labour rights.