A growing crackdown on delivery apps is taking shape across the US.
Federal regulators are weighing new rules. Lawmakers are probing pricing deals between major companies. And in New York City earlier this month, Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a nearly $1 million settlement with a delivery app over its fee structure, and vowed to continue the momentum.
Taken together, the moves point to something bigger than frustration over “junk fees.” They signal a widening effort to scrutinize how prices are set — and who actually controls them — across the delivery economy.
However, “the fee structure question is the easy part,” said Jackie Swanson, a retail and consumer goods strategist and managing partner of Gartner Consulting.
A local crackdown turned national
The Federal Trade Commission this week took a key step toward potentially regulating delivery fees nationwide, seeking public comment on “unfair or deceptive fee practices” in online food and grocery delivery services, according to the agency.
The inquiry targets a familiar frustration: fees that appear late in the checkout process, or pricing that differs from what consumers expect upfront.
“Clear and truthful pricing is essential to competitive markets,” Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in the agency’s announcement.
The FTC is asking whether companies should disclose total prices earlier, explain the purpose of fees, and clarify when pricing varies across users, according to the Federal Register notice.
“The key issue to watch in this rule-making will be how the FTC defines ‘fees’ and the scope of covered services,” M. Scott Vinson, policy and regulatory affairs advisor and former vice president of the National Retail Federation, told Business Insider.
A broad definition could push companies across industries toward more all-in pricing and clearer upfront disclosure, Vinson said. The focus is on delivery platforms, like DoorDash and Uber Eats, but FTC regulation could have ripple effects across other direct-to-consumer models that rely on layered charges, such as travel booking and ticketing sites.
Representatives for DoorDash and Uber Eats did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.
A similar dynamic is already emerging in ticketing, where a recent Justice Department settlement with Live Nation included a $280 million penalty, fee cap, and new transparency requirements — signaling how regulators may approach pricing structures beyond delivery apps
“Whether it proceeds to a proposed rule — and how far it goes — will depend on that process,” Vinson said, adding that the process is still in early stages.
Addressing the affordability crisis
Michael Goldberg, a Case Western Reserve University professor who studies entrepreneurship and venture finance, said the effort reflects a broader push that benefits consumers.
“We’ve all been in a situation where you don’t see the fee until later, or the prices of the food are way higher than they would be in the store,” he said.
And the timing isn’t accidental. Fees have become a visible target — one that’s politically beneficial, especially in the lead-up to the midterm elections.
“People are scrutinizing spending across the board,” Goldberg said. In that environment, policymakers are looking for ways to show they are “trying to do something” to address the affordability crisis.
That helps explain why action is emerging at multiple levels at once.
In Congress, lawmakers have introduced legislation to prevent preferential pricing deals between companies, including between delivery apps and restaurants, following allegations that Walmart and PepsiCo struck an agreement allowing the retailer to undercut competitors.
In New York City, Mamdani has leaned into enforcement, announcing a nearly $1 million settlement with delivery app HungryPanda, which officials said overcharged restaurants through junk fees, Business Insider previously reported.
Fees are the target — but not the whole story
For regulators, delivery fees are a clear entry point. But industry insiders say they’re only part of a much larger system.
Delivery platforms typically charge restaurants commissions of 15% to 30% of an order, with additional fees layered on top — like “enhanced service” charges to ensure they stay visible on the platform, Swanson said. The result is a widening gap between large chains and smaller operators.
“Uber Eats just raised rates on small and mid-size restaurants by 5% in March 2026 while leaving custom-negotiated rates for larger partners largely intact,” she said.
At the center of the issue, Swanson argues, is not just fees but dependency. Smaller operators rely on delivery apps to reach customers, especially as diners eat out less, but are stuck paying high fees to stay visible and compete.
That dynamic creates a fundamental imbalance. For large chains, high commissions can be manageable. Restaurants operating on thin margins often respond by raising menu prices on platforms, adding surcharges, or both, she said.
Efforts to cap or regulate fees don’t eliminate costs; they shift them, Swanson said. Caps can also have unintended consequences for restaurants themselves.
“A mom-and-pop Thai place paying 15% in a fee-capped environment but getting buried in search results is not better off than one paying 25% and showing up on the first page,” she said.
Transparency vs. competition
One of the biggest open questions is whether greater transparency will actually change how the market operates.
Delivery fees already shape behavior. They can add several dollars to an order, and “value-conscious consumers are gravitating toward pickup” to avoid them, Swanson said — but how those fees are presented matters. A clearly labeled $4 delivery charge feels different than multiple smaller fees that add up to the same amount, she added.
“What consumers actually want is to know what the meal will cost before they start building the order, and right now that is not what they get,” she said.
Still, Goldberg was cautious about how much disruption to expect.
“I’m not sure how much room this is going to create for new competitors,” he said.
Taken together, the FTC’s inquiry, congressional scrutiny, and local enforcement actions suggest a broader shift from targeting “junk fees” to examining pricing power.
But some say the current regulation talks may be missing a key piece.
“Fee caps address the contractual relationship,” Swanson said, “but leave the ranking and visibility mechanics entirely untouched,” which means restaurants can face lower fees but worse placement, limiting the benefit.
For now, the FTC is gathering public input before deciding whether to pursue formal rules. If it does, it could create the first nationwide standards for how delivery fees are disclosed.
But even if fees become clearer, they may not become cheaper.
As the crackdown expands, the underlying question remains: will consumers pay less — or just pay differently?
Read the full article here
