Proposed Rule2026-07473
Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees in Online Food Delivery Services
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Trade Commission
Abstract
The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") proposes to commence a rulemaking proceeding to address certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices relating to fees and charges for food and grocery items ordered through online delivery platforms. The Commission is soliciting written comment, data, and argument concerning the need for such a rulemaking to prevent persons, entities, and organizations from engaging in such unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20381-20391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07473]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Chapter I
RIN 3084-AB88
Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees in Online Food Delivery Services
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') proposes to
commence a rulemaking proceeding to address certain unfair or deceptive
acts or practices relating to fees and charges for food and grocery
items ordered through online delivery platforms. The Commission is
soliciting written comment, data, and argument concerning the need for
such a rulemaking to prevent persons, entities, and organizations from
engaging in such unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Members of the public may file a comment online or on paper
by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. Write ``Food Delivery Fees ANPRM
(Project No. P267101)'' on your comment and file your comment online at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. If you prefer to file your comment on
paper, write ``Food Delivery Fees ANPRM (Project No. P267101)'' on your
comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address:
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex F), Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Bakowski (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f19093909a9e86829a98b1978592df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84e5e6e5efebf3f7efedc4e2f0e7aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>; 404-
656-1363); Christopher Gleason (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2241454e4743514d4c624456410c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e281858e8783918d8ca2849681cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>; 404-656-1352),
Attorneys, Southeast Region, Federal Trade Commission.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Background Information
The Commission publishes this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(``ANPRM'') pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
(``FTC Act''), 15 U.S.C. 57a, the provisions of part 1, subpart B, of
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7-1.20, and 5 U.S.C. 553.
This authority permits the Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal
rules that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or
deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of section
5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).
II. Objectives the Commission Seeks To Achieve and Possible Regulatory
Alternatives
A. Description of the Area of Inquiry
Over the last ten years, consumers' use of online food delivery
platforms has skyrocketed.\1\ The number of households who order meals
delivered from restaurants more than doubled from 2019 to 2024, and
about one third of American adults (and more than half of those under
45) now say they order delivery from restaurants at least once a
week.\2\ Over 138 million Americans (more than half of American adults)
bought groceries online in 2024, with average sales over $9 billion
each month, the majority of which is spent on delivery orders.\3\ The
market for online food and grocery delivery
[[Page 20382]]
services is expected to continue growing over the next several
years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this ANPRM, the term ``online food delivery
platforms'' is used to describe online services that enable
consumers to order food and beverage items from restaurants, grocery
stores, and other retailers to be delivered to consumers' homes,
businesses, or other designated locations.
\2\ See Ellen Cushin, The Innovation That's Killing Restaurant
Culture, The Atlantic (Oct. 27, 2025), <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2025/10/food-delivery-america/684700/">https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2025/10/food-delivery-america/684700/</a>; Priya Krishna,
Freedom With a Side of Guilt: How Food Delivery Is Reshaping
Mealtime, N.Y. Times (Jan. 30, 2026), <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/dining/food-delivery-apps-doordash-uber.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/dining/food-delivery-apps-doordash-uber.html</a>.
\3\ See CapitalOne Shopping, Online Grocery Shopping Statistics
(Dec. 11, 2025), <a href="https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/online-grocery-shopping-statistics/">https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/online-grocery-shopping-statistics/</a>.
\4\ See id.; DoorDash Merchant Blog: Understanding the Rise of
Food Delivery Services (May 30, 2024), <a href="https://merchants.doordash.com/en-us/blog/rise-in-food-delivery-and-why-it-is-popular">https://merchants.doordash.com/en-us/blog/rise-in-food-delivery-and-why-it-is-popular</a>; cf. Coggins et al., McKinsey & Co., State of the
Consumer 2025: When Disruption Becomes Permanent (June 9, 2025),
<a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/state-of-consumer">https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/state-of-consumer</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As online food delivery platforms have grown, so have consumer
complaints, especially about prices and fees. One study found that
consumers ordering food from an online delivery platform paid nearly
80% more on average than they would pay picking up the same order
directly from a restaurant, and others have reported total costs
ranging from 25% to over 90% higher, depending on the platform.\5\
Grocery delivery has proven to be similarly costly: at least one report
found that ordering groceries through an online delivery platform
resulted in total costs that were 30-50% higher than shopping in-store
for the same groceries.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Matt Schulz, The Price of Lazy: Nearly 4 in 10 Americans
Get Delivery Weekly--and It's Costing Them Nearly 80% More Than
Pickup, LendingTree (Oct. 28, 2025), <a href="https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/study/delivery-pickup/">https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/study/delivery-pickup/</a>; Brian X. Chen, Up to 91% More
Expensive: How Delivery Apps Eat Up Your Budget, N.Y. Times (Feb.
26, 2020), <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/technology/personaltech/ubereats-doordash-postmates-grubhub-review.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/technology/personaltech/ubereats-doordash-postmates-grubhub-review.html</a>; Josh
Koebert, Food Delivery App Comparison: How Much Can Pick-Up Save You
at Popular Chains? [2026], FinanceBuzz (Jan. 23, 2026), <a href="https://financebuzz.com/compare-costs-food-delivery-apps">https://financebuzz.com/compare-costs-food-delivery-apps</a>.
\6\ See Pamela Vachon, We Did the Math: How Much More Expensive
Is Grocery Shopping With Instacart, Really?, CNET (Jan. 30, 2025),
<a href="https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/we-did-the-math-how-much-more-expensive-is-grocery-shopping-with-instacart-really/">https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/we-did-the-math-how-much-more-expensive-is-grocery-shopping-with-instacart-really/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One factor contributing to these inflated costs--which is not
always apparent to consumers--is that the prices of items on food
delivery platforms are frequently higher than the prices paid for those
items at the restaurant or grocery store.\7\ Media reports indicate
that meal prices on delivery platforms can be over 20% higher than
prices at the restaurant, while grocery items sold through delivery
platforms can be on average 10% higher than in-store prices, before
taking into account the fees charged by the platforms.\8\ And though
some retailers may offer in-store pricing on delivery apps, there are
other factors that can lead to different (and often higher) in-app
prices, including whether a store's loyalty program (and accompanying
discounts) can be linked in the delivery app or whether the app syncs
with weekly or daily changes in in-store pricing.\9\ Perhaps most
importantly, consumers are not always made aware that prices are marked
up or that they would need to parse through disclosures to understand
the various ways in which prices may vary between a restaurant or
grocery store and a delivery platform. Additionally, there is evidence
that food delivery platforms--like other online retailers--are
sometimes charging different prices to different consumers for the same
goods and services.\10\ These pricing practices may not be fully
disclosed to consumers and could pose problems for consumers seeking to
effectively comparison shop across delivery platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Chen, supra note [5].
\8\ See id.; Vachon, supra note [6].
\9\ See Vachon, supra note [6].
\10\ See Ben Casselman, Same Product, Same Store, but on
Instacart, Prices Might Differ, N.Y. Times (Dec. 9, 2025), <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/business/instacart-algorithmic-pricing.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/business/instacart-algorithmic-pricing.html</a>; Jay L. Zagorsky, What Is Personalized Pricing, and How
Do I Avoid It?, The Conversation (July 31, 2025), <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-personalized-pricing-and-how-do-i-avoid-it-262195">https://theconversation.com/what-is-personalized-pricing-and-how-do-i-avoid-it-262195</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to price markups, online food delivery platforms have
been charging consumers increasingly higher fees to have their food and
groceries delivered.\11\ Often, the existence and cost of these fees
are not disclosed until checkout, if at all, meaning that consumers
frequently do not learn the true cost of getting their food delivered
until the very end of the transaction.\12\ These hidden fees force
consumers to either abandon their order (thus wasting the time they
spent preparing it) or pay unanticipated costs that sometimes exceed
the amount they were prepared to spend. Indeed, research suggests that
when consumers face these kinds of pricing practices, they frequently
underestimate the total cost of the transaction \13\ and are reluctant
to restart their search due to the perceived futility of doing so.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Justine Fisher, Food Delivery Fees Are Rising, and
Everyone's Feeling the Pinch, CNBC (July 27, 2024), <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/27/food-delivery-fees-are-rising.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/27/food-delivery-fees-are-rising.html</a>.
\12\ See, e.g., Instacart Help Center, <a href="https://www.instacart.com/help/section/360007902791/360039164252">https://www.instacart.com/help/section/360007902791/360039164252</a> (last
visited Mar. 6, 2026) (stating that delivery fees, service fees, and
priority fees are all shown ``at checkout'' and that some regulatory
response fees may appear on a customer's receipt or ``in the order
summary''); Groupon, DoorDash Fees Explained--and How to Avoid Them
(Jan. 7, 2026), <a href="https://www.groupon.com/coupons/blog/doordash-fees-and-how-to-avoid-them">https://www.groupon.com/coupons/blog/doordash-fees-and-how-to-avoid-them</a> (suggesting that consumers seeking to avoid
fees on DoorDash should ``[c]ompare 2-3 restaurants at cart stage--
pick lower total fees''); see also Deanna Nila, Deception by
Delivery Fees: Demanding Consumer Protections and Transparency in
the Face of Deceptive Fee Practices, 30 Ill. Bus. L.J. 92, 93
(2005).
\13\ See Alexander Rasch et al., Drip Pricing and Its
Regulation: Experimental Evidence, 176 J. Econ. Behav. & Org. 353,
362-63 (2020).
\14\ See Shelle Santana et al., Consumer Reactions to Drip
Pricing, 39 Mktg. Sci. 188, 207 (2020), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1207">https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1207</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to hidden or inadequately disclosed fees, consumers
must also contend with other potentially unfair and deceptive fee
practices. For example, as food delivery platforms compete for cost-
conscious consumers, they have increasingly opted for advertising low-
fee or no-fee delivery options.\15\ But while platforms may purport to
offer ``free delivery'' or ``$0 delivery,'' they often tack on non-
optional charges for delivery orders such as ``service fees,'' ``small
order fees,'' or other mandatory fees that consumers do not expect to
be charged. Some delivery platforms charge both ``delivery'' fees and
``service'' fees, leading many consumers to wonder what ``service''
they are paying for besides delivery. And delivery platforms routinely
ask consumers to provide tips for delivery workers, but the manner in
which those tips are solicited--especially when consumers are being
charged separate fees to pay for delivery--often leaves consumers
confused about how delivery workers are being paid, whether tips are
being paid to drivers, and what level of tip is appropriate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Notably, food delivery platform Grubhub placed a high-
profile advertisement starring actor George Clooney during the 2026
Super Bowl to tell consumers they would not be charged delivery fees
or service fees on restaurant orders over $50. See Dianna Dilworth,
Behind Grubhub's First-Ever Super Bowl Ad (Feb. 2, 2026), <a href="https://brand-innovators.com/behind-grubhubs-first-ever-super-bowl-ad/">https://brand-innovators.com/behind-grubhubs-first-ever-super-bowl-ad/</a>.
\16\ See, e.g., Lauren Jackson, Tipping Confusion, N.Y. Times
(April 9, 2023), <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/briefing/tipping-confusion-food-delivery-apps.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/briefing/tipping-confusion-food-delivery-apps.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These potentially deceptive and misleading practices harm consumers
and competition. Practices that obscure the true price until the end of
a transaction tend to harm consumers in two ways. First, seemingly
lower prices artificially increase prices and lead some consumers to
complete purchases at higher prices. Second, search costs increase when
some consumers backtrack to find lower-price alternatives or forgo a
purchase altogether.\17\ Thus, when the cost of various fees is
obscured or not clearly disclosed upfront, consumers are disadvantaged
in understanding the true
[[Page 20383]]
cost of the transaction and whether a better option exists. Relatedly,
insofar as businesses that employ these deceptive practices are
perceived as having lower prices, they gain an unfair advantage in the
market over those who more transparently represent the costs of their
goods or services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., David Adam Friedman, Regulating Drip Pricing, 31
Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 51, 55 & n.13 (2020); cf. Mary Sullivan, Fed.
Trade Comm'n, Economic Analysis of Hotel Resort Fees 25-28 (2017),
<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/economic-analysis-hotel-resort-fees/p115503_hotel_resort_fees_economic_issues_paper.pdf">https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/economic-analysis-hotel-resort-fees/p115503_hotel_resort_fees_economic_issues_paper.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed further below, these pricing practices have been the
subject of investigations and enforcement actions by the Commission and
State and local government agencies, and numerous State and local
governments have adopted laws or regulations to address these
practices.
1. Past Commission Actions
The Commission has brought several enforcement actions to address
unfair and deceptive practices on food delivery platforms. In FTC v.
Grubhub Inc., No. 1:24-cv-12923 (N.D. Ill. Stipulated Final Order
entered Dec. 31, 2024), the Commission alleged that Grubhub, one of the
largest online food delivery platforms in the United States, violated
section 5 of the FTC Act by, among other things, deceiving consumers
about how much its services cost.\18\ Specifically, the FTC alleged
that Grubhub initially advertised a single, low-cost (or sometimes no-
cost) charge for delivery to entice consumers to place an order and
then charged additional undisclosed fees at checkout that significantly
raised the price paid to use Grubhub's services.\19\ The FTC also
alleged that Grubhub violated section 4 of the Restore Online Shoppers'
Confidence Act (``ROSCA''), 15 U.S.C. 8403, by, among other things,
failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose all fees applicable to
orders placed by consumers who enrolled in its Grubhub+ subscription
plan. Specifically, the FTC alleged that Grubhub advertised ``free
delivery'' or ``$0 delivery fees'' for Grubhub+ members without
adequately disclosing that Grubhub still charged so-called ``service''
and ``small order'' fees on orders placed by Grubhub+ members and
``delivery'' fees on orders from restaurants that did not participate
in Grubhub+.\20\ Grubhub was prohibited from misrepresenting material
facts, including about the amount a consumer will pay in connection
with a delivery order, the existence or amount of any fees, the nature
and purpose of any fee, and whether a consumer will receive free
delivery or delivery for a nominal fee. Grubhub also was ordered to
change its practices to clearly and conspicuously disclose, on any page
referencing the cost to place a delivery order at a particular
restaurant, the amount or percentage (or range of amounts or
percentages) of any additional fees that consumers must pay to place a
delivery order (excluding government charges and optional tips). And
Grubhub was ordered to clearly and conspicuously disclose all fees that
consumers will incur based on selections they make on the Grubhub
platform, including the nature and purpose of each fee, the amount of
each fee, and the total amount a consumer must pay based on the
selections.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC, Illinois
Attorney General Take Action Against Grubhub for Harming Diners,
Workers, and Small Businesses (Dec. 17, 2024), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/ftc-illinois-attorney-general-take-action-against-grubhub-harming-diners-workers-small-businesses">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/ftc-illinois-attorney-general-take-action-against-grubhub-harming-diners-workers-small-businesses</a>.
\19\ See Complaint ]] 4, 7, 34-57, FTC v. Grubhub Inc., No.
1:24-cv-12923 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2024).
\20\ See id. ]] 58-77.
\21\ See Stipulated Order, FTC v. Grubhub Inc., No. 1:24-cv-
12923 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FTC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, No. 4:25-cv-10783 (N.D.
Cal. Stipulated Final Order entered Jan. 13, 2026), the Commission
alleged that Instacart, one of the largest online grocery delivery
platforms in the United States, violated section 5 of the FTC Act by,
among other things, falsely advertising ``free delivery'' on certain
orders.\22\ Specifically, the Commission alleged that Instacart waived
its ``delivery fees'' on orders advertised to feature ``free delivery''
but still charged consumers mandatory ``service fees'' and sometimes
additional fees to have their order delivered. The FTC also alleged
that Instacart violated section 4 of ROSCA by failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose all material terms of its Instacart+
subscription membership program, which offered members reduced fees on
certain orders.\23\ Instacart was ordered to change its fee practices
to clearly and conspicuously disclose the existence of other fees that
apply whenever it advertises free delivery or delivery for a nominal or
otherwise discounted fee. Instacart also was ordered to clearly and
conspicuously disclose all material terms of its Instacart+ membership
program before obtaining consumers' billing information.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Instacart to Pay $60
Million in Consumer Refunds to Settle FTC Lawsuit Over Allegations
it Engaged in Deceptive Tactics (Dec. 18, 2025), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/instacart-pay-60-million-consumer-refunds-settle-ftc-lawsuit-over-allegations-it-engaged-deceptive">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/instacart-pay-60-million-consumer-refunds-settle-ftc-lawsuit-over-allegations-it-engaged-deceptive</a>.
\23\ See Complaint ]] 3, 14-34, FTC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a
Instacart, No. 3:25-cv-10783 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).
\24\ See Stipulated Order, FTC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a
Instacart, No. 4:25-cv-10783 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In In re Amazon, Inc., No. C-4746 (FTC June 9, 2021), the
Commission alleged that Amazon violated section 5 of the FTC Act in
connection with its ``Amazon Flex'' program, in which Amazon hired
drivers to make same-day deliveries to customers, including groceries
and restaurant meals, and gave customers the option to tip the drivers
for certain deliveries.\25\ The Commission alleged that Amazon
misrepresented that 100% of tips would be passed on to drivers, when in
fact Amazon withheld nearly a third of customers' tips to subsidize its
own payments to the drivers.\26\ The Commission ordered Amazon to
change its practices and prohibited, among other things,
misrepresentations that any charge a customer pays is a ``tip'' for
delivery drivers or about how tips are paid to drivers.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Returns Nearly
$60 Million to Drivers Whose Tips Were Illegally Withheld by Amazon
(Nov. 2, 2021), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/11/ftc-returns-nearly-60-million-drivers-whose-tips-were-illegally-withheld-amazon">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/11/ftc-returns-nearly-60-million-drivers-whose-tips-were-illegally-withheld-amazon</a>.
\26\ See Complaint ]] 6-9, 26-34, 50-52, In re: <a href="http://Amazon.com">Amazon.com</a>,
Inc., No. C-4746 (FTC June 9, 2021).
\27\ See Decision and Order, In re: <a href="http://Amazon.com">Amazon.com</a>, Inc., No. C-4746
(FTC June 9, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FTC v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:26-cv-01655 (N.D. Cal. Stipulated
Final Order entered Mar. 3, 2026), the Commission alleged that Walmart
violated section 5 of the FTC Act in connection with its Spark Driver
program in which Walmart hired drivers to make same-day deliveries to
customers, including groceries and other items, and gave customers the
option to tip the drivers for certain deliveries.\28\ Among other
things, the Commission alleged that Walmart deceptively stated that
100% of tips would be passed on to drivers, when in fact Walmart
sometimes failed to provide paid tips to drivers.\29\ Walmart was
enjoined from misrepresenting that the customers' tips would be paid to
drivers.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Walmart Agrees to
$100 Million Judgment to Settle FTC, States' Charges Over Deceptive
Earnings Claims Related to the Company's Spark Driver Delivery
Service (Feb. 26, 2026), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/walmart-agrees-100-million-judgment-settle-ftc-states-charges-over-deceptive-earnings-claims-related">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/walmart-agrees-100-million-judgment-settle-ftc-states-charges-over-deceptive-earnings-claims-related</a>.
\29\ See Complaint ]] 13, 18, 102-07, 123-25, FTC v. Walmart
Inc., No. 3:26-cv-1655 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026).
\30\ See Stipulated Order, FTC v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:26-cv-1655
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20384]]
2. State and Local Laws and Regulations
States and municipalities have enacted various laws and regulations
related to food delivery platforms, including with respect to how such
platforms advertise and disclose pricing and fee information. Perhaps
most notably, several States have recently enacted \31\--and others
have considered or are considering enacting \32\--statutes and
regulations requiring advertised prices to represent the total price of
a good or service, inclusive of mandatory fees and other seller-imposed
charges.\33\ Most of these laws include industry- or business-specific
provisions applicable to delivery platforms (including food and grocery
delivery platforms), as well as to restaurants, grocery stores, and
other food- or beverage-service facilities such as hotels or bars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Cal. Civ. Code 1770(a)(29) (2026); Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-
1-737 (2026); 940 Mass. Code Regs. 38.00 et seq. (2025); Minn. Stat.
325D.44 et seq. (2025); Va. Code Ann. 59.1-607 et seq. (2025).
\32\ See, e.g., S.B. 180, 33rd Leg. Reg. Sess. (Alaska 2023-
2024); S.B. 363, 2025-2026 Gen. Assemb. (N.Y. 2025); S.B. 986, 2025
Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2025); S.B. 430, 2025 Reg. Sess. (Or. 2025).
\33\ In most cases, ``total price'' excludes government-imposed
charges like taxes, as well as shipping and postage fees. See, e.g.,
940 Mass. Code Regs. 38.03 (2025). Some jurisdictions impose
additional requirements, including that the total price be displayed
more prominently than other pricing information and that information
about charges not included within the total price be clearly and
conspicuously disclosed to consumers. See 940 Mass. Code Regs.
38.04(6) (2025); Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-1-737(2)(a) (2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Requirements and Exceptions for Food and Grocery Delivery Platforms
States that have recently enacted ``total price'' or ``price
transparency'' laws and regulations have generally included exceptions
or separate requirements applicable to food and grocery delivery
platforms. For example, two States have laws delineating particular
disclosure requirements for food delivery platforms; \34\ other States
impose specific requirements for ``delivery platform[s]'' and
``delivery network compan[ies]'' (both of which would include food and
grocery delivery platforms, along with other delivery platforms); \35\
and at least one State imposes a limited exception that applies to food
and grocery delivery platforms only.\36\ Despite slight variations
across jurisdictions, these approaches highlight that tailored pricing
and disclosure requirements may be appropriate for third-party food and
grocery delivery platforms given that such platforms typically serve as
intermediaries between consumers and the primary seller or maker of the
ordered goods. Indeed, some States expressly distinguish between
pricing and fee disclosure requirements for third-party food delivery
platforms versus pricing disclosure requirements for food- and
beverage-service facilities like restaurants, bars, and hotels.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Virginia's Fair Food Delivery Act, Va. Code Ann. 59.1-586
(2025) et seq., sets pricing and disclosure requirements for ``food
delivery platform[s],'' and its requirements are expressly
incorporated into Virginia's recently enacted total price statute.
See Va. Code Ann. 59.1-608(I) (2025). California likewise has a
separate statutory provision detailing various requirements for food
delivery platforms. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. 22598 (2025) et seq.
Though California's total price provision includes an exception that
allows restaurants, bars, food concessions, grocery stores, and
grocery delivery services to display mandatory fees or charges
separately (so long as such fees or charges are clearly and
conspicuously disclosed), that exception does not apply to ``third-
party food delivery platform[s]'' or ``any other food delivery
platform[,]'' meaning that, under California law, third-party food
delivery platforms would likely have different disclosure
requirements than grocery delivery platforms. See Cal. Civ. Code
1770(a)(29)(D)(i)-(iv) (2026).
\35\ See Minn. Stat. 325D.44 Subd. 1a(c) (2025); Colo. Rev.
Stat. 6-1-737(2)(c) (2026).
\36\ See 940 Mass. Code Regs. 38.04 (2025) (permitting a food
delivery platform or grocery delivery platform ``to Advertise the
price of menu items set by a food store, restaurant, or grocery
store'' but requiring such platforms to ``display Clearly and
Conspicuously the maximum mandatory charges or fees that a consumer
must pay to complete a transaction on their user interface any time
any pricing information is displayed'').
\37\ See, e.g., Minn. Stat. 325D.44 Subd. 1a(c), 1(a)(h) (2025)
(setting out different compliance standards for ``delivery
platform[s]'' and ``food or beverage service establishment[s],
including [ ] hotel[s]''); see also Office of the Minnesota Attorney
General, Frequently Asked Questions About Minnesota's New Price
Transparency Law (January 1, 2025), <a href="https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Price-Transparency/PriceTransparencyLaw_FAQ.pdf">https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Price-Transparency/PriceTransparencyLaw_FAQ.pdf</a> (providing that,
under the Minnesota price transparency law, a pizza restaurant
delivers its own pizzas is not a ``delivery platform'' for purposes
of the law ``because it makes itself the goods being delivered [sic]
and sets the price of the goods being delivered'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For States that have pricing and fee disclosure requirements that
are applicable to food and grocery delivery platforms (and other
delivery platforms), at least two requirements are common: (1) the
platform must clearly and conspicuously disclose upfront any mandatory
fees or charges the consumer must pay as part of the transaction and,
in some cases, the amount or percentage of any such fees; and (2) prior
to checkout, the platform must provide the consumer with an itemized
breakdown of the costs of the good or services in addition to the costs
of any fees or surcharges.\38\ Some States impose additional
requirements, including that the amount, nature, purpose, or
recipient(s) of charged fees be disclosed at the point when a consumer
is shown pricing information or selects either a vendor or items for
purchase.\39\ At least one State also requires that food and grocery
delivery platforms display the maximum mandatory charges or fees a
consumer must pay to complete a transaction whenever pricing
information is displayed.\40\ Additionally, some States expressly
prohibit various misrepresentations, including with respect to the
total price; the nature, purpose, or amounts of mandatory fees; the
refundability of any amounts charged; and the recipient(s) of any
amounts charged.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See, e.g., Minn. Stat. 325D.44 Subd. 1a(c)(1)-(2) (2025);
Va. Code Ann. 59.1-587(B)(1)-(2) (2025); Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-1-
737(2)(c) (2026). In Massachusetts, these same requirements are
broadly applicable and not specific to delivery platforms. See 940
Mass. Code Regs. 38.04(2)-(3) (2025); see also Cal. Bus. & Prof.
22599.1(b)(1)-(4) (2026) (requiring food delivery platforms to
provide customers with ``an accurate, clearly identified, and
itemized cost breakdown'' of certain costs, including but not
limited to ``the purchase price of the food and beverage'' and
``[e]ach fee, commission, and any other cost charged to the customer
by the food delivery platform'').
\39\ See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-1-737(c)(I)(A)-(B) (2026)
(requiring disclosure of, among other things, the amount or
percentage of fees as well as an accurate description of the purpose
and recipients of such fees); Minn. Stat. 325D.44 Subd. 1a(c)(1)
(2025) (requiring disclosure of amount or percentage of additional
fees); see also 940 Mass. Code Regs. 38.04(2)(a), (3)(b) (2025)
(requiring all entities, not just delivery platforms or food and
grocery delivery platforms, to disclose, among other things, the
nature, purpose, and amount of fees or other charges imposed on a
transaction).
\40\ 940 Mass. Code Regs. 38.04 (2025) (``Food delivery or
grocery delivery platforms must display Clearly and Conspicuously
the maximum mandatory charges or fees that a consumer must pay to
complete a transaction on their user interface any time any pricing
information is displayed.'').
\41\ See 940 Mass. Code Regs. 38.04(1)-(3) (2025) (prohibiting
misrepresentation of, among other things, the total price, as well
as the nature, purpose, and amount of fees and charges); Colo. Rev.
Stat. 6-1-737(3)(a) (2026) (prohibiting misrepresentation of, among
other things, the refundability of any amounts charged, the identity
of goods or services for which a consumer is charged; the recipient
of an amount charged for a good or service; and the actual price of
a good or service for which an amount is charged). In both cases,
these requirements apply to delivery platforms, including food and
grocery delivery platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Requirements for Price-Variable Goods and Services
In addition to having pricing and disclosure requirements that
apply to food delivery platforms, some States' total price statutes
also include tailored requirements for price-variable goods and
services--that is, goods or services for which the total price is at
least partly based on consumer selections or other factors like
distance and time.\42\ For the jurisdictions that have adopted this
approach, entities providing price-variable goods or services typically
must
[[Page 20385]]
clearly and conspicuously disclose (1) any fees or charges that are
variable and will factor into determining the total price; (2) the
existence of any mandatory fees associated with the transaction; and
(3) the fact that the total price of the good or service may vary.\43\
Many food and grocery delivery platforms currently charge variable
fees, and the total price of a transaction typically varies based on a
consumer's selections, as well as on other factors such as the size of
an order or the distance and time it will take to deliver the order.
Indeed, at least one State expressly requires that, insofar as a food
delivery platform is also a price-variable supplier, that platform must
also comply with the disclosure requirements for price-variable
suppliers.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, e.g., Va. Code Ann. 59.1-607 (2025) (`` `Price-
variable supplier' means a supplier that offers services the total
price of which is determined by consumer selections or preferences
or dependent on distance or time.'').
\43\ See Va. Code Ann. 59.1-608(D) (2025) (``A price-variable
supplier is compliant with this section if such supplier clearly and
conspicuously discloses (i) the factors determining the final price,
(ii) any mandatory fees or surcharges associated with the
transaction, and (iii) that the total cost of services may vary.'');
Minn. Stat. 325D.44 subd.1a(g) (2025) (``A person offering services
where the total cost of a service is determined by consumer
selections and preferences, or where the total cost of the service
relates to distance or time, is compliant with this subdivision if
the person discloses in a clear and conspicuous manner (1) the
factors that determine the total price, (2) any mandatory fees
associated with the transaction, and (3) that the total cost of the
services may vary.''); Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-1-737(2)(b)(II) (2026)
(same).
\44\ See Va. Code Ann. 59.1-587(D) (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. State, Municipal, and Private Party Lawsuits
In addition to the Commission's enforcement actions discussed
above, States and municipalities have brought lawsuits alleging unfair
and deceptive practices by food and grocery delivery platforms. In City
of Chicago v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-5162 (N.D. Ill. dismissed
pursuant to joint stipulation Nov. 19, 2025), the City of Chicago
alleged that delivery platform DoorDash violated city regulations by,
among other things, misrepresenting, concealing, or failing to disclose
or disclose adequately: (1) DoorDash's delivery fee, including by
advertising ``free delivery'' when the true price of delivery service
was higher; (2) the full extent and amount of service fees; (3) that
its ``Chicago Fee'' was imposed by the City of Chicago as opposed to
DoorDash; (4) terms and conditions related to promotional discounts;
(5) that DoorDash had an authorized business relationship with certain
restaurants; (6) information about how tips paid by consumers on the
DoorDash platform were used with respect to driver pay; and (7) that
the prices shown on DoorDash's platform contained markups from the
prices available on restaurants' own menus.\45\ Under the terms of the
settlement resolving the case, DoorDash agreed to pay $18 million,
which included payments (or credits being made available) to eligible
restaurants, DoorDash users, and drivers.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Complaint ]] 188-210, City of Chicago v. DoorDash,
Inc., No. 1:21-cv-5162 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2021).
\46\ Press Release, Office of the Mayor of the City of Chicago
(Nov. 14, 2025), <a href="https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2025/november/doordash-practices-settlement.html">https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2025/november/doordash-practices-settlement.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In District of Columbia v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., No. 2022 CA
001199 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Consent Judgment and Order entered Jan. 4,
2023), the District of Columbia alleged that Grubhub violated D.C. law
by, among other things, misrepresenting or failing to disclose: (1) its
business relationship with certain restaurants listed on the Grubhub
app; (2) that the ``delivery fee'' was the only fee consumers would
have to pay for orders on the Grubhub platform; (3) that Grubhub+ users
would receive ``free delivery'' when they in fact had to pay a
``service fee'' on delivery orders; (4) the existence of ``service
fees'' and ``small order fees'' that Grubhub charged, and that such
charges were separate from taxes; (5) that Grubhub's ``order online for
free'' representations were only applicable to pickup orders; and (6)
that the prices shown on Grubhub's platform were in fact higher for
certain items than on restaurants' own menus.\47\ Grubhub was ordered
to pay $2.7 million to affected consumers and $800,000 to the District
of Columbia.\48\ Grubhub also was ordered to, among other things: (1)
prominently disclose that additional fees may apply to a consumer's
order and provide information about such fees on the same page or via a
hyperlink or similar method; (2) list the names and amounts of fees as
separate line items at checkout; (3) stop the practice of combining
taxes and fees as a single line item on the Grubhub platform; (4) stop
representing that Grubhub+ users receive ``free delivery'' and disclose
that other fees may apply; and (5) stop displaying and charging prices
on the Grubhub platform that are higher than those offered directly
from a restaurant's menu unless Grubhub clearly and conspicuously
discloses, both on the platform menu and at checkout, that prices on
the Grubhub platform may be higher than those offered directly from
restaurants.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Complaint ]] 104-110, District of Columbia v. Grubhub
Holdings, Inc., No. 2022 CA 001199 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 21,
2022).
\48\ See Consent Judgment and Order ]] 32-36, District of
Columbia v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., No. 2022 CA 001199 B (D.C.
Super. Ct. Jan. 4, 2023); see also Press Release, Office of the
Attorney General for the District of Columbia (Dec. 30, 2022),
<a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-secures-35-million-grubhub-illegally">https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-secures-35-million-grubhub-illegally</a>.
\49\ See Consent Judgment and Order ]] 22-31, District of
Columbia v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., No. 2022 CA 001199 B (D.C.
Super. Ct. Jan. 4, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In District of Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart, No.
2020 CA 003777B (D.C. Super. Ct. Consent Judgment and Order entered
Aug. 22, 2022), the District of Columbia alleged that Instacart
violated D.C. law by misleading Instacart users, through a variety of
misrepresentations and material omissions, into believing that an
optional service fee was a tip that would be paid to Instacart delivery
workers, when, in fact, the money collected from these fees was used to
pay Instacart's operating expenses and was not paid to workers.\50\
Instacart was ordered to pay $1.8 million and was enjoined from, among
other things, making any misrepresentations or omissions of material
fact regarding the nature and purpose of any fees applied by
Instacart.\51\ In a similar case, the New York State Attorney General
investigated DoorDash for allegedly misleading consumers and delivery
workers about how tips were paid to workers, including by using tips to
subsidize delivery workers' pay (that is, using tips to offset workers'
base pay instead of paying the full tips to workers). DoorDash was
required to pay $16.75 million as part of a settlement resolving the
investigation.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Complaint ]] 79-92, District of Columbia v. Maplebear,
Inc. d/b/a Instacart, No. 2020 CA 003777B (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 27,
2020).
\51\ See Consent Order and Judgment ]] 9-14, District of
Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart, No. 2020 CA 003777B
(D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 22, 2022); see also Press Release, Office of
the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (Aug. 19, 2022),
<a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-announces-instacart-must-pay-254-million">https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-announces-instacart-must-pay-254-million</a>.
\52\ See Press Release, Office of the New York State Attorney
General (Feb. 24, 2025), <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-secures-1675-million-doordash-cheating-delivery-workers">https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-secures-1675-million-doordash-cheating-delivery-workers</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private parties also have brought lawsuits aimed at allegedly
deceptive acts and practices by food and grocery delivery platforms.
For example, in Hecox v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:23cv1006 (D. Md. filed
Apr. 14, 2023), the plaintiffs alleged in part that DoorDash deceived
and misled consumers about DoorDash's prices and fees. And in Watson v.
Crumbl LLC, No. 2:23cv1770 (E.D. Cal. dismissed pursuant to joint
stipulation Feb. 26, 2026), the plaintiffs alleged that Crumbl, a
retailer that sells cookies for takeout or delivery through its own
app, violated California law by misrepresenting the price of its
[[Page 20386]]
products, including by failing to adequately disclose a service fee on
all orders and bundling the service fee within a line item for ``taxes
and fees'' at checkout.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Watson v. Crumbl LLC, 736 F. Supp. 3d 827, 840-46 (E.D.
Cal. 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Unfair or Deceptive Fees Rulemaking
In 2022, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking requesting public comment on a potential rulemaking
proceeding to address certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices
relating to fees across the economy.\54\ In response to that ANPRM, the
Commission received numerous comments expressing concerns about fees
imposed by prepared food and grocery delivery services. As the
Commission noted in its notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'') for
the Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, published on
November 9, 2023, commenters stated that delivery apps charge fees that
are not reflected in advertised food prices and that the nature or
purpose of these fees is not always clear or is misrepresented, such as
when fees identified as delivery fees do not go to delivery
personnel.\55\ Some commenters raised concerns about mandatory add-on
fees that were not disclosed until checkout.\56\ One commenter also
noted that prepared food and grocery delivery apps have been the
subject of law enforcement actions challenging misrepresentations
relating to fees.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unfair or Deceptive
Fees Trade Regulation Rule, 87 FR 67413 (Nov. 8, 2022), <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/08/2022-24326/unfair-or-deceptive-fees-trade-regulation-rule-commission-matter-no-r207011">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/08/2022-24326/unfair-or-deceptive-fees-trade-regulation-rule-commission-matter-no-r207011</a>.
\55\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Trade Regulation Rule on
Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 88 FR 77420, 77426 & nn.66-68 (Nov. 9,
2023), <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/09/2023-24234/trade-regulation-rule-on-unfair-or-deceptive-fees">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/09/2023-24234/trade-regulation-rule-on-unfair-or-deceptive-fees</a>.
\56\ See 88 FR at 77421 & n.9 (citing FTC-2022-0069-1437).
\57\ 88 FR at 77426 & n.68 (citing FTC-2002-0069-6095 (comment
of Consumer Federation of America)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a rule that would require
businesses to clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price for
goods and services upfront, including all mandatory fees that consumers
must pay except for ``government charges'' and ``shipping charges'' (as
defined in the proposed rule).\58\ The Commission explained in the NPRM
that the proposed rule's exception for ``shipping charges'' did ``not
include the cost of delivery through couriers, such as those in mobile
delivery applications.'' \59\ Some commenters supported the proposed
rule, noting the consumer harms caused by hidden or misleading fees on
food delivery platforms.\60\ However, several commenters raised
concerns that upfront pricing would be impractical for third-party
delivery platforms, threaten dynamic pricing practices, or make it
harder for consumers to distinguish between the prices charged by
retailers for items sold and the prices charged by the platforms for
delivery services.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See 88 FR at 77438-40, 77483-84.
\59\ 88 FR at 77439.
\60\ See, e.g., FTC-2023-0064-0067 (comment of Michael Fede);
FTC-2023-0064-0096 (comment of Emily Richardson); FTC-2023-0064-1194
(comment of Kelly Feenan); FTC-2023-0064-1939 (comment of Tzedek
DC); FTC-2023-0064-1957 (comment of Tiffany Lewis); FTC-2023-0064-
2568 (comment of Stephanie Burdick). Publicly posted comments on the
NPRM can be located at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0064-0001/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0064-0001/comment</a>.
\61\ See, e.g., FTC-2023-0064-3263 (comment of the Flex
Association); FTC-2023-0064-3137 (comment of Chamber of Progress);
FTC-2023-0064-3238 (comment of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP); FTC-
2023-0064-3202 (comment of TechNet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble for the final Unfair or Deceptive Fees Rule, the
Commission determined, in its discretion, to proceed incrementally and
not include food delivery platforms as part of that rule.\62\ Based on
the relevant information discussed above, the Commission's view is that
unfair and deceptive fee practices like those the Commission challenged
in Grubhub, Instacart, Amazon, and Walmart, those that have been the
subject of State and local regulation and law enforcement and private
lawsuits, and others identified by commenters to the Unfair or
Deceptive Fees Rulemaking and in recent surveys and reports, appear to
be prevalent and may require additional Commission action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See, e.g., Statement of Basis and Purpose, Rule on Unfair
or Deceptive Fees, 90 FR at 2089, 2119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
The Commission believes a rule addressing unfair or deceptive fees
practices in online food delivery platforms could help reduce the level
of unlawful activity in this area, serving as a deterrent against these
practices because such a rule would allow for civil penalties to be
sought against violators.\63\ It also would enable the Commission to
more readily obtain redress for consumers through section 19(a)(1) of
the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(1). Further, a rule could help level the
playing field and provide regulatory certainty by establishing clearer
guidelines for fee transparency across all online food delivery
platforms and across States and localities, reducing or eliminating
incentives to engage in unfair or deceptive fee practices to gain
competitive advantages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Commission has brought cases that challenge delivery
fee practices under section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, its current
remedial authority is limited. The U.S. Supreme Court held that
equitable monetary relief, including consumer redress, is unavailable
under section 13(b) of the FTC Act.\64\ Consumer redress under section
19(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(2), is limited and challenging to obtain,
significantly diminishing the Commission's ability to provide timely
relief to injured consumers in this critical area. Moreover, to the
extent that these practices are prevalent, unlawful pricing practices
and an unfair playing field persist despite the Commission's actions to
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67, 82 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requests input on whether and how it can most
effectively use its authority under section 18 of the FTC Act, 15
U.S.C. 57a, to address deceptive or unfair acts or practices involving
fees and charges for food and grocery items ordered through online
delivery platforms. Specifically, the Commission proposes addressing
the following practices, which have been the subject of previous
Commission investigations, enforcement actions, research, or rulemaking
proceedings, among other activities: (a) misrepresenting or failing to
disclose clearly and conspicuously the total price for food or grocery
items ordered for local delivery or pickup; (b) misrepresenting or
failing to disclose clearly and conspicuously the existence, nature,
purpose, amount, refundability, or recipient of any fees, charges
(including optional charges such as tips), or other costs for a
delivery or pickup order; (c) misrepresenting or failing to disclose
clearly and conspicuously the factors that determine any fees, charges,
or other costs that are contingent or variable based on consumer
selections such as the number or type of items purchased or delivery
location; (d) misrepresenting or failing to disclose clearly and
conspicuously whether fees, charges, or other costs are mandatory or
optional, or any material restriction, limitation, or condition
concerning any good or service that may result in a mandatory fee or
charge in addition to the cost of the good or service or that may
diminish the consumer's use of the good or service, including the
amount the
[[Page 20387]]
consumer receives; (e) misrepresenting or failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered through
online food delivery platforms, exclusive of fees and charges imposed
by the platform, are the same as, or different from, the prices for the
same items offered in the store or restaurant or the prices for the
same items offered to other consumers on the platform; (f)
misrepresenting or failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose any
material restriction, limitation, or condition concerning any
applicable discount or promotion; (g) misrepresenting that a consumer
owes payments for any product or service the consumer did not agree to
purchase; and (h) billing or charging consumers fees or charges, or for
goods or services, without express, informed consent.
The Commission seeks comment on, among other things, the prevalence
of each of the above practices, the costs and benefits of a rule that
would address them, and alternatives to or additional actions to
supplement such a rulemaking, such as the publication of additional
consumer and business education. In their replies, commenters should
provide any available evidence and data that supports their position,
such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, and consumer
complaints.
C. The Rulemaking Process
The Commission seeks the broadest participation from the public in
response to this ANPRM. The Commission encourages all members of the
public to submit written comments. The Commission also expects affected
interests to assist the Commission in analyzing various options and in
drafting any proposed rule. After reviewing responsive comments, the
Commission may proceed with further steps outlined in section 18 of the
FTC Act and Part 1, Subchapter B, of the Commission's Rules of
Practice.
III. Request for Comments
Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or
concerns they believe are relevant to the Commission's consideration of
the proposed rulemaking. In addition to the issues raised above, the
Commission solicits public comment on the specific questions identified
below. These questions are designed to assist the public and should not
be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may
be submitted. For all questions, the Commission seeks commenters'
views, arguments, experiences, and the qualitative and quantitative
data that support or inform their answers.\65\ The Commission requests
that commenters be specific, explain their reasoning, and submit all
factual data, evidence, and analyses such as the empirical data upon
which the comments are based. For questions that ask about potential
rule requirements (for example, Questions 32-63), the Commission
requests that commenters discuss how any such changes differ from
current practices, how such requirements would benefit consumers,
including data, evidence, and analyses on both monetary and nonmonetary
benefits, and what such requirements would cost delivery service
providers and merchants, including data, evidence, and analyses on
capital and labor costs, and how such costs vary with the size and type
of delivery service providers and merchants. The Commission must
receive comments on or before May 18, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Public Participation in the
Rulemaking Process, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rulemaking/public-participation-rulemaking-process">https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rulemaking/public-participation-rulemaking-process</a>. Commenters who filed
comments on other rulemaking dockets that address related issues,
such as the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning a Trade
Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 88 FR 77420 (Nov. 9,
2023), and who want to ensure their comments are considered in
response to this ANPRM should update them, as commenters think
appropriate, and re-file them on this rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Questions About the Market for Online Food Delivery Platforms
1. What is the type and role of each person, entity, or
organization involved in advertising and providing local delivery of
food, beverage, or grocery items to consumers through online platforms
(``online food delivery platforms''), and how many such persons,
entities, or organizations participate in each role or category?
a. Of those affected, how many are small businesses?
2. What different types of arrangements exist between the persons,
entities, or organizations identified in response to Question 1 to
facilitate delivery to consumers through online food delivery
platforms, and how common are each of these types of arrangements? For
example:
a. What percentage of restaurants, grocery stores, or other food
and beverage retail establishments (together, ``food and grocery
merchants'') operate their own online food delivery platforms, use
third-party online food delivery platforms, or some combination?
b. What are the different means that online food delivery platforms
use to provide delivery services (for example, employing delivery
workers, using independent contractors, operating autonomous vehicles)?
c. To what extent do agreements exist between third-party online
food delivery platforms and food and grocery merchants, and are such
agreements exclusive or nonexclusive?
3. To what extent do food and grocery merchants have control over
(or visibility into) the manner in which third-party online food
delivery platforms display prices, charge fees, or otherwise operate
their platforms and provide delivery services to consumers?
a. Do third-party online food delivery platforms offer delivery
services for food and grocery merchants without notice to or consent
from the food and grocery merchants?
b. How prevalent is the practice of listing unaffiliated food and
grocery merchants on third-party online food delivery platforms?
c. What are the costs and benefits for consumers and food and
grocery merchants of listing unaffiliated food and grocery merchants on
third-party online food delivery platforms?
4. What is the size of the market for online food delivery
platforms, and how is this market expected to grow or change in future
years?
a. What innovations (technological, financial, etc.) are expected
in the food and beverage and delivery service industries, and how are
these innovations expected to affect the market for, and the pricing
practices of, online food delivery platforms?
5. To what extent do online food delivery platforms provide local
delivery services for goods other than food, beverage, and grocery
items?
a. To what extent are such delivery services provided from food and
grocery merchants that sell items other than food, beverage, and
grocery items?
b. To what extent are such delivery services provided from
merchants that do not sell food, beverage, and grocery items?
c. What share of revenues from online food delivery platforms come
from delivering food, beverage, and grocery items versus other types of
goods (or from servicing food and grocery merchants versus other types
of merchants), and how are these shares expected to change in future
years?
6. What are the market shares of the largest online food delivery
platforms in the United States and in any relevant geographic
submarkets?
a. How have these market shares changed in recent years?
b. How are these market shares expected to change in future years?
7. How does the market share of third-party online food delivery
platforms
[[Page 20388]]
compare to the market share of food and grocery merchants that operate
their own online food delivery platforms, and how are these market
shares expected to change in future years?
8. How is revenue shared between online food delivery platforms and
food and grocery merchants or types of merchants for which they provide
delivery services?
a. What are the different components of revenue that may be shared
(such as price markups, fees, tips, or other charges), and how is
revenue shared for each of these components?
9. What are the different types of fees and charges (including
optional charges such as tips and government-mandated charges such as
taxes) that online food delivery platforms charge to consumers?
a. What is the nature and purpose of each of these fees or charges?
b. To what extent can consumers reasonably avoid these fees and
charges?
c. To what extent are these fees or charges refundable?
d. To what extent are these fees and charges fixed before an order
is placed (such as a flat fee or percentage of the order total)?
e. To what extent are these fees and charges contingent or variable
based on a consumer's selections (such as delivery location or number
and types of items ordered)?
f. Do the types of fees and charges tend to vary based on the
nature of the online food delivery platform (for example, whether it
focuses on restaurants versus grocery stores; whether it is operated by
the food and grocery merchant or by a third party; or whether it
employs delivery workers directly or uses independent contractors)?
10. How are the fees and charges that online food delivery
platforms charge to consumers determined?
a. Do online food delivery platforms use fixed formulas or
equations to set the amount of fees and charges?
b. To what extent do factors such as time of delivery, distance
traveled, or driver availability affect these fees and charges?
c. To what extent are these fees and charges affected by refunds or
substitutions of items or order cancellations?
11. Is there any academic research or data source(s) that
illuminates the size and structure of fees and charges (including
optional charges such as tips) for online food delivery platforms? If
so, please provide references to any such sources, including:
a. Any research or data on the size of fees and charges; fees and
charges as share of total price; the size of different fee or charge
components; the size of different fee or charge components as a share
of total fees; the variation in fees and charges by delivery platforms;
the variation in fees and charges between first-party and third-party
delivery platforms; or the variation in fees and charges within
delivery platforms across different food and grocery merchants.
b. Any research or data on the relationship between fees and
distance traveled, time spent traveling, and/or speed of delivery
(including priority delivery options).
12. In what manner, and at what times, do online food delivery
platforms disclose the existence, nature, purpose, amount,
refundability, and recipient of fees and charges (including optional
charges such as tips and government-mandated charges such as taxes)?
13. How common is it for online food delivery platforms to
advertise reduced or free delivery costs (for example, ``free
delivery'' or ``$0 delivery fees'') while still charging additional
mandatory fees or charges (excluding government charges) on delivery
orders?
a. How common is it for online food delivery platforms to charge
both a ``delivery'' fee and an additional mandatory fee (such as a
``service'' fee) on delivery orders?
14. How widespread is the practice of failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose the existence and/or amount of all mandatory
fees or charges (excluding government charges) until checkout?
15. How widespread is the practice of failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose the existence and/or amount of all mandatory
fees or charges (excluding government charges) before consumers begin
placing an order?
a. How widespread is the practice of failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose the amount of all mandatory fixed fees or
charges (excluding government charges) before consumers begin placing
an order?
b. How widespread is the practice of failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose the amount of all mandatory variable fees or
charges (excluding government charges) before consumers begin placing
an order?
16. How widespread is the practice of failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose the factors that determine any contingent or
variable fees or charges before consumers begin placing an order?
17. How widespread is the practice of misrepresenting in any offer,
display, or advertisement for online food delivery services any fee or
charge, including: the nature, purpose, amount, refundability, or
recipient of any fee or charge; and the identity of the good or service
for which the fee or charge is imposed?
18. How widespread is the practice of misrepresenting mandatory
fees or charges as optional and vice versa?
a. How widespread is the practice of misrepresenting that fees or
charges are imposed by a government entity?
19. How do promotional offers, discounts, or subscription
membership programs affect the fees and charges that online food
delivery platforms charge to consumers or the manner in which such fees
and charges are disclosed?
a. For promotional offers based on delivery times, how do fees
change, if at all, if advertised delivery times are not met?
20. How do online food delivery platforms collect and distribute
tips for delivery workers?
a. At what stage(s) of the purchase process are tips solicited from
consumers?
b. To what extent are tip amounts suggested to or selected for
consumers by default?
c. To what extent (and for what periods of time) are consumers
permitted to change the amount of a tip?
d. What representations, if any, are made to consumers regarding
how tips will be paid to delivery workers (for example, that the
delivery driver will receive 100% of tipped amount, that tips will be
shared between the delivery driver and restaurant employees, etc.) or
how tips will affect delivery worker compensation (for example, that
tips will be paid in addition to wages), and in what manner are such
representations made?
e. What representations, if any, are made to consumers regarding
how tips will affect the status of their orders (for example, that
placing a tip before delivery will or will not help get an order
delivered faster), and in what manner are such representations made?
f. To what extent are online food delivery platforms' practices
with respect to tips subject to Federal, State, or local laws and
regulations?
21. How common is it for consumers to be confused about whether
service fees or other fees and charges on online food delivery
platforms will be treated as tips or other types of compensation for
delivery workers?
22. How do online food delivery platforms alter their practices to
conform with varying national, State, or local laws governing fees and
charges to consumers?
a. For example, do online food delivery platforms create customized
fee or charge disclosures to match the law of the jurisdiction where
delivery services are offered, or do they
[[Page 20389]]
implement uniform procedures that follow the most stringent regulations
applicable?
b. What incremental costs do online food delivery platforms incur
in complying with varying national, State, or local regulations, and to
what extent are these costs incurred by or shared with food and grocery
merchants or others (such as delivery workers)?
c. Are there any studies or data on the incremental costs and
benefits to consumers and businesses of such laws that have been
implemented?
23. What impediments, if any, exist that impact the ability of
online food delivery platforms to disclose all mandatory fees and
charges before a consumer begins placing an order and every place where
price is displayed?
a. What impediments, if any, exist that impact the ability of
online food delivery platforms to disclose the factors that determine
any contingent or variable fees or charges before consumers begin
placing an order and every place where price is displayed?
24. To what extent do online food delivery platforms offer
alternatives to delivery (such as in-store pickup)?
a. How are these alternatives advertised and disclosed to
consumers?
b. To what extent do the fees and charges for these alternatives
vary from the fees and charges imposed on delivery orders?
25. To what extent do online food delivery platforms charge prices
that are different from the prices offered by food and grocery
merchants to consumers in person (``in-store prices''), and how do
these pricing practices vary across platforms or across different food
and grocery merchants?
a. To what extent do online food delivery platforms disclose the
differences between prices of items sold through the platform and in-
store prices?
b. To what extent are the prices charged by online food delivery
platforms raised above in-store prices to eliminate or reduce the
amount of separate fees on the platform?
c. What are the different reasons that the prices charged by online
food delivery platforms may differ from in-store prices?
26. To what extent do online food delivery platforms charge
different prices, fees, or charges to individuals for the same goods or
services based on individualized consumer data (such as geolocation,
demographics, purchasing history, app usage, browser history or other
online behavior, device hardware, IP address) (``personalized
pricing'')?
a. What types of consumer and merchant data are used by online food
delivery platforms to develop personalized pricing, and what are the
sources of such data?
b. How do online food delivery platforms use different data
elements in assigning personalized prices?
c. To what extent are personalized prices lower or higher than non-
personalized prices on online food delivery platforms?
d. To what extent, and in what manner, do online food delivery
platforms disclose their use of personalized pricing, the data they use
to assign personalized prices, and the sources of such data?
e. How does the use of personalized pricing affect the amount of
fees and charges on online food delivery platforms?
f. To what extent do online food delivery platforms enable
consumers or merchants to opt out of personalized pricing or the
collection or use of their data for personalized pricing?
g. What are the different reasons that online food delivery
platforms use personalized pricing?
h. How are food and grocery merchants impacted by personalized
pricing?
i. What are the costs and benefits of personalized pricing to
consumers, food and grocery merchants, and online food delivery
platforms; how are such costs and benefits distributed across
consumers, food and grocery merchants, and online food delivery
platforms; and to what extent do these costs and benefits depend on the
extent to which the collection and use of consumer data for
personalized pricing is disclosed or not disclosed?
27. For each of the potentially unfair or deceptive practices
described in Section II.B. of this ANPRM, does the practice harm
consumers or competition?
a. If so, how does the practice harm consumers or competition?
28. For each of the potentially unfair or deceptive practices
described in Section II.B. of this ANPRM, are there circumstances in
which such practices would not be unfair or deceptive?
a. If so, what are those circumstances?
29. How widespread are the potentially unfair and deceptive
practices described in Section II.B. of this ANPRM in the United States
and in any relevant geographic submarkets?
a. Are there competition effects such that the adoption of such
practices by one or more online food delivery platforms leads other
online food delivery platforms to adopt the same practices?
b. Are online food delivery platforms using such practices as a way
to appear cheaper relative to competitors?
30. How has the Commission's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16
CFR part 464) impacted the markets for live-event ticketing and short-
term lodging, including, but not limited to:
a. What benefits and costs have arisen?
b. Has consumer search time changed?
c. Have market prices and quantities shifted as a result of total
price disclosures?
d. What costs have firms borne to satisfy the rule's disclosure
requirements?
e. Please provide evidence, data, and analyses on both monetary and
non-monetary benefits and costs.
31. How would the Commission's earlier proposal of an economy-wide
rule on unfair and deceptive fees \66\ have impacted relevant markets,
including, but not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ NPRM, Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 88
FR 77420 (Nov. 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Have benefit-cost analyses been performed on the proposed total
price disclosures either across the economy or with a specific focus on
the online delivery market?
b. Would consumer search time change?
c. Would market prices and quantities shift as a result of the
proposed total price disclosures?
d. What costs would firms bear to satisfy the proposed disclosure
requirements?
e. Please provide evidence, data, and analyses on both monetary and
non-monetary benefits and costs.
B. Questions About Potential Rule Provisions and Other Potential
Commission Action
32. Is there a need for new rule provisions to prevent the
potentially unfair or deceptive practices described in Section II.B. of
this ANPRM?
a. If so, should the Commission issue a new rule and add a new part
to 16 CFR chapter 1, subchapter D, or should the Commission amend the
Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 CFR part 464)?
b. How should the Rule on Unfair and Deceptive Fees (16 CFR part
464) be amended, if necessary, to apply to online food delivery
platforms?
33. How should such a rule be crafted to maximize the benefits to
consumers and minimize the costs to businesses, including small
businesses?
34. What terms would such a rule need to define (for example,
delivery, food and grocery merchants, or online
[[Page 20390]]
food delivery platforms) and how should such a rule define those terms?
For example:
a. Should delivery services covered by such a rule be defined to
exclude certain methods of delivery (such as delivery by mail, private
mail and shipping services, or freight) or applied to only certain
types of deliveries (for example, same-day deliveries)?
b. Should food and beverage merchants be defined to include
establishments that exclusively sell items through online food delivery
platforms (such as ghost kitchens and grocery warehouses)?
35. Should such a rule prohibit online food delivery platforms from
offering, displaying, or advertising a combined price for goods or
services (e.g., that a consumer can get a product delivered for a
specific price) without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total
price that includes all mandatory fees and charges?
a. If so, should such a rule permit delivery charges to be excluded
from total price, the way that shipping charges may be excluded from
total price under the Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 CFR part
464)?
36. Should such a rule prohibit online food delivery platforms from
offering, displaying, or advertising any price for delivery services
(or price for alternatives to delivery services such as in-store
pickup) without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price of
such services, including all mandatory fees and charges?
37. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms, in
any offer, display, or advertisement that represents the total price of
goods or services, to disclose the total price including all mandatory
fees and charges more prominently than any other pricing information?
38. Should such a rule prohibit online food delivery platforms from
failing to disclose clearly and conspicuously, before consumers consent
to pay for goods or services, the nature, purpose, amount,
refundability, and recipient of any fee or charge that they have
excluded from advertised prices and the identity of the good or service
for which the fee or charge is imposed?
39. Should such a rule prohibit online food delivery platforms, in
any offer, display, or advertising for goods or services, from
misrepresenting any fee or charge, including: the nature, purpose,
amount, refundability, or recipient of any fee or charge; and the
identity of the good or service for which the fee or charge is imposed?
40. Should such a rule require total price to include government-
imposed fees and charges, including taxes?
41. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
disclose the amount or range of amounts (actual or estimated) of
contingent or variable fees or charges?
a. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
include such fees or charges in the total price or in the price of
delivery services (or price of alternatives to delivery services)?
b. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
disclose the factors that determine any contingent or variable fees or
charges before consumers begin placing an order?
c. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
disclose the amount of contingent or variable fees or charges as soon
as consumers provide the information needed to determine the
applicability or amount of such fees and charges?
42. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
itemize all fees and charges?
a. When and how should such a rule require such itemizations?
b. In such itemizations, should such a rule require online food
delivery platforms to explain the nature and purpose of each fee or
charge?
43. Should such a rule require fees or charges to accurately
reflect the actual cost of the goods or services covered by the fee or
charge?
44. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
disclose the extent to which fees or charges will or will not be paid
to delivery workers (or to food and grocery merchants)?
a. When and how should such disclosures be made?
b. Should such a disclosure be required when an online food
delivery platform uses a term (such as ``service fee'') that could be
construed by a reasonable consumer as a fee or charge that will be paid
to delivery workers?
45. How, if at all, should such a rule address tips or gratuities
paid to delivery workers?
46. How, if at all, should such a rule address tips or gratuities
paid to food and grocery merchant staff?
47. How, if at all, should a rule address changes in prices or fees
and charges based on issues relating to order fulfillment such as
refunds, substitutions, order cancellations, or delivery problems?
48. Should such a rule require all mandatory fees and charges to be
disclosed before a consumer begins placing an order on an online food
delivery platform?
a. When and how should such mandatory fees and charges be
disclosed?
49. Should such a rule require any disclosures concerning optional
fees and charges?
a. If so, what disclosures should be required?
50. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
disclose how promotional offers, discounts, or subscription membership
programs affect the fees and charges that online food delivery
platforms charge?
a. If so, when and how should such disclosures be made?
51. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
disclose whether the prices of items are the same as (or different
from) the prices offered by food and grocery merchants to consumers in
person (in-store prices)?
a. If so, what disclosures should be required?
52. Should such a rule require online food delivery platforms to
disclose whether they use personalized pricing and/or the extent to
which consumers' data is collected or used in connection with
personalized pricing?
a. If so, what disclosures should be required?
53. Should the requirements of such a rule apply equally to orders
placed for delivery and orders placed with an alternative to delivery
(such as in-store pickup)?
54. Should the requirements of such a rule apply equally to all
food and grocery merchants?
a. If not, how should the requirements of such a rule vary among
different types of merchants (such as restaurants, grocery stores, or
other food and beverage retail establishments)?
55. Should such a rule exempt or exclude any type of online food
delivery platforms (for example, platforms operated directly by a food
and grocery merchant, platforms that serve only a limited number of
consumers, or platforms that serve only a limited number of food and
grocery merchants) from compliance with the rule, in whole or in part?
a. If so, please identify such platforms, provide a justification
for exempting or excluding them, and specify the type or types of
potential requirements from which they would be exempted or excluded.
56. If such a rule applied only to orders for delivery of food,
beverage, and grocery items (and not to orders for delivery of other
goods), or if such a rule applied only to orders for delivery from food
and grocery merchants (and not to orders from other merchants), what
challenges might arise in implementing
[[Page 20391]]
such a rule, and how should those challenges be mitigated?
57. Should such a rule exempt or exclude any type of orders placed
on online food delivery platforms (for example, orders that are not for
food, beverage, or grocery items or orders from merchants that are not
food and grocery merchants) from compliance with the rule, in whole or
in part?
a. If so, please identify such orders, provide a justification for
exempting or excluding them, and specify the type or types of potential
requirements from which they would be exempted or excluded.
58. How would such a rule intersect with existing industry
practices, norms, rules, laws, or regulations?
a. Are there any existing laws or regulations (including any of
those described in Section II of this ANPRM) that would affect or
interfere with the implementation of such a rule?
b. Should such a rule preempt State and local laws and regulations
governing online food delivery platforms, in whole or in part?
59. How would a rule requiring the disclosure of mandatory fees and
charges before a consumer begins placing an order and/or every place
where price is displayed affect platform and participating merchant
costs, either directly (in terms of time, labor, design, and
programming) or indirectly (through responses from consumers,
competitors, or intermediaries)?
a. How, if at all, would these costs differ for small businesses?
b. What studies or data are available to quantify these costs?
60. How would a rule requiring the disclosure of mandatory fees and
charges before the consumer consents to pay affect advertising?
61. How would a rule requiring the disclosure of total price
including all mandatory fees and charges affect platform and
participating merchant costs, either directly (in terms of time, labor,
design, and programming) or indirectly (through responses from
consumers, competitors, or intermediaries)?
a. How, if at all, would these costs differ for small businesses?
b. What studies or data are available to quantify these costs?
62. How would a rule requiring the disclosure of total price
including all mandatory fees and charges affect advertising?
63. What are the anticipated benefits of a rule requiring that
mandatory fees and charges be disclosed before a consumer begins
placing an order and/or every place where price is displayed?
a. How can these benefits be quantified, and to what extent might
they include time savings, improved consumer decision-making, or other
measurable outcomes?
b. What studies or data are available to quantify these benefits?
c. Would the anticipated benefits differ if a rule were to require
disclosure of total price as opposed to clear and conspicuous
disclosure of mandatory fees and charges?
64. What are the anticipated benefits of a rule requiring the
disclosure of total price including all mandatory fees and charges?
a. How can these benefits be quantified, and to what extent might
they include time savings, improved consumer decision-making, or other
measurable outcomes?
b. What studies or data are available to quantify these benefits?
65. Should the Commission consider publishing additional consumer
and business education materials or hosting public workshops to reduce
consumer injury or harm associated with the potentially unfair and
deceptive practices described in Section II.B. of this ANPRM?
a. If so, what should such education materials and workshops
include, and how should the Commission communicate that information to
consumers and businesses?
IV. Comment Submissions
The public is invited to submit comments on this document. The
Commission will consider all timely and responsive comments it receives
on or before May 18, 2026. Because of the agency's heightened security
screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be delayed. We
strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. If you prefer to file your
comments on paper, write ``Food Delivery Fees ANPRM (Project No.
P267101)'' on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment
by overnight service to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex F),
Washington, DC 20580.
For comments submitted online through the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website, you are solely responsible for making sure
your comment does not include any sensitive personally identifiable or
health information. In addition, your comment should not include any
``trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . .
is privileged or confidential''--as provided by section 6(f) of the FTC
Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--
including in particular competitively sensitive information such as
costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices,
manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Your comment--including your name and your State--will be placed on
the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent
practicable, on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Once your
comment has been posted there--as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)--
we cannot redact or remove your comment from that website unless you
submit a written confidentiality request that meets the requirements
for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel
grants that request. Such requests must be clearly labeled
``Confidential,'' must include the factual and legal basis for the
request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be
withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c).
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit
the collection of public comments to consider and use in this
proceeding, as appropriate. For information on the Commission's privacy
policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy">https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy</a>.
V. Regulatory Review
E.O. 14215 requires all executive branch departments and agencies
to submit all their proposed and final significant regulatory actions
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. E.O. 12866
says that agencies should assess the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and
distributive impacts).
By direction of the Commission.
Joel Christie,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-07473 Filed 4-15-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js" defer></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 16, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.