The FTC announced an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on a potential nationwide rule to address unfair or deceptive fee practices by online food and grocery delivery platforms. The ANPRM covers requirements for disclosing total prices, fees, variable charges, price differentials, and promotion terms. Past FTC enforcement actions against Instacart and Grubhub for deceptive fee practices are cited as evidence of ongoing issues in the industry.
In-house legal teams at online food delivery platforms should review customer-facing terms of service, pricing agreements, and vendor contracts with restaurant partners. Key clauses to audit include pricing disclosures (ensuring total item and delivery prices are displayed upfront), fee schedules (disclosing all mandatory, variable, and contingent fees before checkout), promotion and discount terms (stating all material restrictions), and billing clauses (prohibiting unauthorized charges). Vendor agreements should also require restaurants to disclose any price differentials between in-store and delivery menu items, and customer agreements should disclose if personalized pricing is used.
Entity
Online Food and Grocery Delivery Platforms
Industry
Food Delivery"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services"
"April 14, 2026"
"Federal Trade Commission"
"online food and grocery delivery platforms"
"Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act."
"FTC is seeking public comment on whether a rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with the services provided by online food and grocery delivery platforms nationwide."
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.