Scan a website for consumer and competition risks, report a problem, and search live cases. Not a law firm.

CounterLayer
← Case library

EU · ongoing · ~10 min read

EU Food Delivery Platform Fee and Ranking Investigations

2022–present · food delivery platforms, restaurant marketplaces, quick commerce

Restaurants pay delivery apps hefty commissions on every order. European regulators are checking whether platforms abuse power by pushing ads, hiding ranking rules, or favoring their own ghost kitchens. National fee caps appeared; EU antitrust cases continue without a final continent-wide verdict.

The story

Food delivery apps connect restaurants, couriers, and hungry customers. During COVID, many eateries survived only through app orders.

Commissions often ran 20–30%, plus fees for appearing higher in search. Restaurants said they barely broke even on app sales.

Spain capped delivery fees in crisis periods; other countries considered similar rules while antitrust agencies opened abuse probes.

Italian and other authorities investigated exclusivity—clauses requiring restaurants not list cheaper on rival apps—and alleged opacity in ranking.

Platforms expanded 'dark kitchens' they partly control, worrying regulators about self-preferencing similar to Amazon retail conflicts.

Uber Eats, Deliveroo, and Just Eat argue commissions fund marketing, courier networks, and fraud prevention; caps reduce service quality.

Investigations remain open—restaurant anger is well documented, but not every fee level has been declared illegal abuse of dominance.

Why it matters

Menu prices rise when restaurants pass commission costs to you.

Local eateries may disappear if apps are their only channel at unsustainable fees.

Ranking transparency affects which restaurants you even see.

Delivery platform power parallels broader gig and marketplace debates.

What was claimed

Platforms dominate local food delivery intermediation in many EU cities.

Excessive or discriminatory commissions abuse dominance.

Bundled ads and premium placement resemble tied selling harming independents.

Self-preferencing of owned kitchens distorts restaurant competition.

The other side

Platforms say they provide demand restaurants cannot reach alone.

They argue couriers and insurance costs justify commissions.

They maintain restaurants can use multiple apps and direct ordering.

They warn price caps reduce delivery availability in suburbs.

What it means for you

Ordering direct from a restaurant website may save them commission—many offer pickup discounts.

Compare total price with fees and minimums across apps.

Tips policies vary; read whether tips reach couriers in your city.

Regulatory changes may alter fee structures gradually—not overnight.

Bottom line

EU food delivery platforms face national caps and antitrust scrutiny over fees and ranking. Cases are ongoing; restaurants still negotiate app dependence daily.

Timeline

  1. 2020–2022

    Restaurants depend on delivery apps

    Lockdowns pushed eateries onto Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and Just Eat; commissions up to 30% sparked political backlash.

  2. 2022–2023

    National interventions multiply

    Spain capped fees; France and others debated transparency on tips and rankings.

  3. 2023–2024

    Antitrust theories develop

    Authorities examined exclusivity clauses, preferential placement for ghost kitchens, and bundled ads packages.

  4. Ongoing

    Sector monitoring

    No EU-wide fine closed the sector; restaurants push for permanent caps and ranking transparency.

Key dates

Spanish delivery fee caps during COVID recovery
2021–2023
Italian AGCM Deliveroo investigation (reported)
2022–2023
Restaurant association EU complaints
2023–2024
Ongoing national probes
2024–2025

Formal snapshot

Summary: National EU authorities and the Commission coordinate scrutiny of food delivery platforms' commission caps, worker classification aside, focusing on restaurant parity, ranking, and dual-role marketplace conduct.

Regulator / plaintiff argument: Dominant delivery apps may impose excessive commissions, tie delivery to advertising products, and self-preference owned dark kitchens over independent restaurants.

Outcome: Spanish and other national measures capped fees temporarily; abuse investigations and DMA-style transparency debates continue without EU-wide final penalties.

Conduct tags

abuse of dominancediscriminationvertical restraintself preferencing

Laws referenced

  • TFEU Article 102 — Art. 102 TFEU
  • TFEU Article 101 — Art. 101 TFEU

Companies

Sources

Reader signals

0 reads · synced via local demo storage — add NEXT_PUBLIC_SUPABASE_* to enable shared likes and comments

Comments

    No comments yet — start the thread.