A prominent food delivery app is under scrutiny after internal data revealed systematic price adjustments tied to user behavior, with some customers paying up to 37% more than others for identical meals. The revelations have triggered regulatory inquiries and consumer complaints.
- Price differences of up to 37% observed for identical meals based on user location and device type
- Dynamic pricing algorithm reportedly used user behavior data to influence final charges
- Over 150,000 users involved in a pending class-action lawsuit
- Three regulatory bodies initiated inquiries into potential consumer protection violations
- Stock price fell 9.4% in two days amid growing scrutiny
- Algorithmic adjustments linked to browsing patterns, including delayed purchase behavior
A major food delivery platform has come under fire following findings that its pricing algorithm adjusted menu prices in real time based on user location, device type, and browsing history. Internal records analyzed by an independent data auditor show that users on older smartphones or in lower-income zip codes were charged significantly higher rates for the same dishes, with price discrepancies reaching as high as 37% for identical orders. The platform, which serves over 40 million active users across North America and Europe, reportedly used a proprietary algorithm to dynamically adjust prices in response to user engagement patterns. Customers who had previously viewed multiple options without ordering were charged up to 22% more than those who made immediate purchases, suggesting a strategy to incentivize faster decision-making. Regulatory authorities in three jurisdictions have launched preliminary investigations into potential violations of consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and two European national agencies are examining whether the pricing tactics constitute deceptive practices or price discrimination. Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of over 150,000 users, alleging financial harm due to undisclosed rate variations. The company has acknowledged the existence of dynamic pricing but maintains that all adjustments comply with existing terms of service. However, critics argue that the lack of transparency and user control undermines informed consent. Investor confidence has wavered, with the platform’s stock dropping 9.4% over two trading sessions following the reports.