In their letter, the attorneys general noted that online food delivery platforms have become some of the worst offenders of “drip pricing”—the practice of tacking on extra fees and charges at the end of a transaction without adequately disclosing the fees up front.

A group of 16 state attorneys general recently urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue new rules regulating pricing practices by online food delivery services. The states’ letter, dated May 18, 2026, calls for new rules against pricing practices used by such platforms that, the states allege, are deceptive and harm consumers in their states.

Key Takeaways

• State attorneys general continue to urge the FTC to crack down on hidden pricing schemes in various industries.
• The FTC and state attorneys general are showing a willingness to combat alleged unfair and deceptive pricing practices in the online food delivery business.
• Online service platforms that utilize practices such as “drip pricing” and “personalized pricing” can anticipate increasing scrutiny of their pricing practices at the state and federal level.

Background

On April 13, 2026, attorneys general from 26 states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to the FTC in response to the agency’s March 13, 2026, notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether a rule to prevent unfair or deceptive practices in connection with rental housing fees and charges is needed.

Several days later, on April 16, 2026, the FTC issued another notice, this time seeking public comment on whether a rule to prevent unfair or deceptive fees in online food delivery services is needed. A separate group of 16 attorneys general sent the May 18 letter to the FTC in response to the April 16 notice.

The notice of proposed rulemaking is just the first step in the process. The public comment period closed on May 18, 2026.

The Attorneys General Letter

In their letter, the attorneys general noted that online food delivery platforms have become some of the worst offenders of “drip pricing”—the practice of tacking on extra fees and charges at the end of a transaction without adequately disclosing the fees up front. In addition to the standard delivery fee, some platforms charge service fees without disclosing what service is being provided other than delivery. Other examples of unexplained fees include “small order fees” and “regulatory response fees.”

These “bait and switch pricing practices,” the attorneys general contend, prevent consumers from making meaningful assessments about the best platform to fit their needs and financial resources.

The attorneys general also warn that the increased practice of using consumers’ personal data to make individualized pricing decisions—called “personalized pricing” or “surveillance pricing”—creates still more confusion and unfairness.

The attorneys general encouraged the FTC to amend its existing Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees to make it applicable to online food delivery platforms and to promulgate new rules applicable to food delivery platforms, such as:

• At each stage of the item-selection process (e.g., after selecting one item but before adding another item), the total price for the order, inclusive of all fees and charges, should be clearly and conspicuously displayed;
• Food delivery platforms should be required to accurately describe the purpose of each fee and how the fee is calculated, including whether the revenue generated from the fees goes to the platform, the restaurant or the delivery worker; and
• Food delivery platforms should be required to disclose any markup or variation from in-store pricing for individual menu items and to separately itemize the total markup or variation as part of the total order.

The attorneys general also suggested that the FTC promulgate a new rule on personalized pricing that is tailored to such practices in the online food delivery business.

They emphasized that any such rules should constitute “a floor, not a ceiling” and should allow states to enact protections that extend beyond those rules.

The letter was signed by the attorneys general of New York, Tennessee, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Conclusion

The FTC’s notice of proposed rulemaking and the letter from the 16 attorneys general show that food delivery pricing practices are drawing scrutiny from federal and state enforcers. More broadly, the pricing practices that the attorneys general identify in their letter—such as drip pricing and personalized pricing—are increasingly under the microscope. Companies that utilize such practices should consult with experienced counsel to review their pricing practices to ensure that they keep pace with the rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory environment.

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Christopher H. Casey, Daniel R. Walworth, any of the attorneys in our State Attorneys General Group, any of the attorneys in our Antitrust and Competition Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.