GRUBHUB INC. - COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, MONETARY JUDGMENT, CIVIL PENALTY JUDGMENT, AND OTHER RELIEF

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Skyler

Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by the Federal Trade Commission and the People of the State of Illinois against Grubhub Inc. and Grubhub Holdings Inc. alleges violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and the FTC Trade Regulation Rule on impersonation, alongside state consumer protection statutes. The pleading claims Grubhub uses hidden fees, misleads diners about total delivery cost, employs deceptive enrollment and cancellation tactics for Grubhub+, and restricts accounts and gift card balances.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages66

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Summary of the Case

Alleged platform operations and market growth

Alleged deception about delivery costs and hidden fees

Alleged deceptive subscription enrollment and cancellation

Alleged denial of account and gift card access

Case: 1:24-cv-12923 Document \#: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 Page 1 of 66 PageID \#:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB INC., a corporation, and GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., a corporation, Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, MONETARY JUDGMENT, CIVIL PENALTY JUDGMENT, AND OTHER RELIEF COMPLAINT Plaintiffs the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), and the People of the State of Illinois, by Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General, for their Complaint allege: 1. The FTC brings this action for Defendants Grubhub Inc. and Grubhub Holdings Inc.’s violations of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8401 et seq.; the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule entitled “Impersonation of Government and Businesses”(“Impersonation Rule”), [16 C.F.R. pt. 461](16 C.F.R. pt. 461); and for Defendants’ participation in acts and practices that the Commission has previously determined to be unfair and deceptive, in connection with their sale of food ordering and delivery services. For these violations, the FTC seeks relief, including permanent injunctive relief and monetary relief, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 57b; and ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8404. 2. Plaintiff People of the State of Illinois, as part of the same case or controversy, also brings this action for Defendants’ violations ofthe Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Case: 1:24-cv-12923 Document \#: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 Page 2 of 66 PageID \#:2 Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505 (“Consumer Fraud Act”), and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510. The Attorney General of the State of Illinois brings this action under Section 7 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/7) to obtain a permanent injunction, restitution, and civil penalties against Defendants. SUMMARY OF THE CASE 3. Grubhub Inc. and Grubhub Holdings Inc. (together,“Grubhub”) operate Defendants’ online food ordering and delivery service. Grubhub allows diners to browse thousands of restaurant offerings and order food for delivery or pickup from those restaurants by using a single, consolidated platform. Grubhub’s platform includes the food ordering and delivery system under the Seamless brand, which Grubhub acquired through a merger in 2013—one of multiple acquisitions that have contributed to its growth. 4. Grubhub has grown enormously over the last decade, becoming one of the largest online ordering and delivery services in the country. It operates in over 2,400 U.S. cities, with more than 500,000 restaurants on its platform, and over 200,000 delivery drivers. Each year, approximately 31 million active diners place 262 million orders through Grubhub. 5. As a digital platform, Grubhub had to achieve a critical mass of customers in order to gain scale. The more restaurants it signed up, the more diners would be likely to use Grubhub—and more diners, in turn, would draw more restaurants. More business meant more reviews, more data, and other benefits that would turbocharge Grubhub’s momentum and allow it to experience accelerated growth. 6. Faced with these incentives, Grubhub resorted to dishonesty and underhanded tactics in its quest to gain scale. It has consistently misled and mistreated the market participants it relies on to do business: the diners that place food orders through Grubhub’s platform, the Case: 1:24-cv-12923 Document \#: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 Page 3 of 66 PageID \#:3 restaurants whose offerings Grubhub markets and delivers, and the drivers who deliver the orders made through Grubhub. 7. Grubhub harms diners by deceiving them about how much its services cost, promising one price but charging more through hidden fees. A former Grubhub

FAQs

Who is bringing this complaint and against whom?

The Federal Trade Commission and the People of the State of Illinois bring the action against Grubhub Inc. and Grubhub Holdings Inc.

What types of conduct does the complaint allege regarding pricing?

The complaint alleges Grubhub promises one delivery price but charges additional undisclosed fees at checkout, which it describes as misleading pricing tactics.

What does the complaint allege about Grubhub+ subscriptions and cancellations?

The complaint alleges Grubhub+ subscribers are subject to the same undisclosed fees as non-subscribers and that Grubhub makes cancellation difficult, trapping diners in the subscription.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Skyler