Court Rules
All enforcement actions
GuidanceLow Risk

FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services

Online Food and Grocery Delivery PlatformsApril 14, 2026Federal Trade Commission

Summary

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.

Contract Impact

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.

Contract Search Terms

total price disclosurefee transparencyservice fee disclosureunauthorized billingpersonalized pricingvariable fee disclosurepromotion termsprice differential disclosure

Laws Cited

FTC Act

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

Online Food and Grocery Delivery Platforms

Industry

Food Delivery

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Title
"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services"
Event Date
"April 14, 2026"
Jurisdiction
"Federal Trade Commission"
Entity Name
"online food and grocery delivery platforms"
Laws Cited
"Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act."
Summary
"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."

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

Credit Glory LLC

The FTC filed a complaint against Credit Glory LLC and related entities for deceptive credit repair practices, including false promises, impersonating debt collectors, charging illegal upfront fees, and using negative option billing without consent. A federal court temporarily halted the operation.

FTC

Federal Trade Commission

The FTC issued a policy statement abandoning disparate-impact liability, stating it will no longer bring claims based on this theory. It also modified compliance obligations for several companies based on past decisions.

FTC

Hims & Hers

The FTC, along with Utah and California, filed a complaint against Hims & Hers alleging the telehealth provider shared consumers' sensitive health information with third-party advertising platforms without consent, and deceived consumers about billing and cancellation practices. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.

FTC

Elite Events and Tickets LLC

$300K

The FTC alleged that Elite Events and Tickets LLC, doing business as Smart Scalpers, violated the Better Online Ticket Sales Act by circumventing security measures to bypass ticket purchase limits for over 2,400 events, reselling tickets at a profit. The proposed order requires payment of $300,000 (with a total penalty of $10.7 million partially suspended) and permanently prohibits the company and its owners from engaging in such circumvention tactics.

FTC

Dennise Merdjanian

$45.9M

The FTC permanently banned Dennise Merdjanian from the debt relief industry and telemarketing after she and Superior Servicing LLC allegedly ran a student loan forgiveness scam that took more than $45.9 million from consumers. The proposed stipulated order imposes a partially suspended monetary judgment and resolves the FTC's litigation against the remaining defendants.

FTC

Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Daniel Leon, and Hanoch Goldstein

$16.5M

The FTC charged the founders of Celsius Network with deceiving consumers by falsely promising that cryptocurrency deposits were safe and always available. The founders agreed to pay $16.5 million and are banned from marketing or selling products that can be used to deposit or withdraw assets, among other restrictions.