The FTC announced an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on a potential nationwide rule to address unfair or deceptive fee practices by online food and grocery delivery platforms. The ANPRM covers requirements for disclosing total prices, fees, variable charges, price differentials, and promotion terms. Past FTC enforcement actions against Instacart and Grubhub for deceptive fee practices are cited as evidence of ongoing issues in the industry.
In-house legal teams at online food delivery platforms should review customer-facing terms of service, pricing agreements, and vendor contracts with restaurant partners. Key clauses to audit include pricing disclosures (ensuring total item and delivery prices are displayed upfront), fee schedules (disclosing all mandatory, variable, and contingent fees before checkout), promotion and discount terms (stating all material restrictions), and billing clauses (prohibiting unauthorized charges). Vendor agreements should also require restaurants to disclose any price differentials between in-store and delivery menu items, and customer agreements should disclose if personalized pricing is used.
Entity
Online Food and Grocery Delivery Platforms
Industry
Food Delivery"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services"
"April 14, 2026"
"Federal Trade Commission"
"online food and grocery delivery platforms"
"Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act."
"FTC is seeking public comment on whether a rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with the services provided by online food and grocery delivery platforms nationwide."
$49.8M
The FTC and four states alleged that Progress Residential and Pretium Partners misled renters about rental prices and fees, improperly withheld security deposits, and engaged in other unlawful conduct. Under a proposed settlement, the companies will pay $49.75 million and must change their pricing, deposit, and customer-service practices.
The FTC and 22 state attorneys general filed an updated complaint alleging that Amazon secretly added surcharges to advertising auction prices and misled advertisers about the reasons for price increases. The release describes newly unredacted allegations; it does not report a judgment, settlement, or monetary penalty.
$600K
The FTC and Washington alleged that Riverside Payments and affiliates misrepresented savings and cancellation terms, concealed fees and auto-renewing contracts, and obtained consumers’ financial information using false or fraudulent statements. The proposed stipulated order requires a $600,000 payment, customer notice and a period to rescind agreements without penalty, and prohibits deceptive claims while requiring clear disclosures, informed consent for negative-option billing, and a simple cancellation method.
FTC staff announced warning letters to 25 healthcare plan marketers and lead generators about deceptive or unfair claims concerning plan benefits, coverage, costs, and enrollment incentives. The letters do not allege wrongdoing by their recipients or impose penalties; they encourage companies to review their advertisements for compliance.
The FTC summarized enforcement actions and other efforts targeting businesses and individuals allegedly impersonating government agencies or legitimate businesses. The release reports more than $80 million in consumer redress across prior actions and takedowns of 19 websites, but it does not announce a new settlement or impose a specific penalty.
The FTC and state and local co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging Toast imposed hidden and unauthorized fees, enrolled restaurants in add-ons without consent, obstructed subscription cancellations, and misrepresented customer support availability. The complaint is pending in federal court; the press release announces no monetary penalty or imposed remedy.