FTC seeks input to target hidden fees on food delivery apps

The FTC has launched an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and is seeking public comment on “unfair or deceptive fees” in online food and grocery delivery services, as part of its broader junk-fee initiative.

What the FTC is doing

• The Commission has prepared an ANPRM focused specifically on fees charged by online food and grocery delivery platforms (apps and websites).

• It is asking consumers, restaurants, workers, and industry to submit comments on how these fees are presented, how they are disclosed, and how they affect total prices and competition.

• The ANPRM is framed around “unfair or deceptive” fee practices, tying into the FTC’s existing Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, which already targets bait‑and‑switch and drip pricing in other sectors.

Hidden/junk fee practices in scope

While the detailed question set will be in the Federal Register notice, the initiative is aimed at practices such as:

• Advertising low food or delivery prices while adding mandatory service, platform, or fulfillment fees late in the checkout flow (drip pricing).

• Labeling fees in a way that misrepresents who receives them (for example, a “delivery” or “driver” fee that does not actually go to drivers, or a “service” fee that partly compensates the platform itself).

• Omitting mandatory fees from the upfront or comparison price, making it difficult to compare across apps or channels.

• Practices that may steer orders away from restaurants’ own channels through misleading price displays or fee structures.

The action follows prior enforcement in the delivery space (e.g., cases alleging “free delivery” while charging mandatory service fees and misleading subscription enrollments), signaling that the Commission sees a pattern of deceptive fee practices in this vertical.

Relationship to broader junk‑fee rule

• The online food‑delivery ANPRM sits under the FTC’s larger effort to regulate unfair or deceptive fees across markets, where the Commission has already proposed or finalized rules that would require any advertised price to include all mandatory fees and ban misleading fee descriptions.

• For food delivery apps, a likely regulatory direction (if a rule is ultimately adopted) is: all unavoidable platform‑imposed charges must be included in the primary advertised price, with any remaining fees clearly labeled and accurately described.

Implications for industry stakeholders

• Platforms may need to re‑design pricing displays (search results, menu pages, and checkout), relabel or restructure fees, and align with an “all‑in price” standard, similar to what the FTC has signaled for other sectors.

• Restaurants could benefit from more consistent, transparent fee disclosures that reduce consumer confusion and make price comparisons between ordering direct and ordering through apps more straightforward.

• Consumers may ultimately see fewer surprise charges at checkout and clearer information about which fees pay drivers versus platforms or restaurants, depending on how any final rules are crafted.