In June 2025, every restaurant operating on DoorDash, Uber Eats, or Grubhub in New York City received a notification. New service tiers available. Enhanced options now offered. The fee structure was changing.
It read like a terms-of-service update. Basic plan stayed at 23%. Enhanced services ran up to 43% per order, covering better search placement, wider delivery radius, promotional positioning. Stay at 23%, keep your spot on the platform. Just not necessarily a visible one.
Most operators made a choice and moved on. What none of them knew is that the notification was the back end of a federal lawsuit. DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub had spent three years in court to make sure that choice was the one landing in their inbox.
The lawsuit
May 2021. NYC had spent a year protecting its restaurant industry from delivery platform fees with a cap: 15% for delivery, 23% all-in when marketing and credit card processing were included. Emergency measure first. Then permanent.
The case ran for three years. During that stretch, city lobbying records show the three platforms spent tens of thousands of dollars lobbying City Council members, including the member who would eventually sponsor the settlement bill. In 2023 a federal judge declined to dismiss the case, which meant the apps had enough of an argument to keep going. The legal pressure on the city was building.
The settlement landed April 23, 2025. The apps would drop the litigation. In exchange, the City Council would make "best efforts" to pass a bill raising the fee cap. That bill was Int. 762-B, sponsored by Councilmember Rafael Salamanca. It passed May 1.
The new structure: up to 43% per order. Fifteen percent for delivery, 5% for basic marketing, 3% for credit card processing, and an additional 20% for enhanced services. A restaurant can decline the enhanced tier and stay on the platform. Whether that translates to competitive visibility depends on how the algorithm treats basic-tier listings, which the platforms control and have not made transparent.
Delivery platforms had until June 30 to notify all NYC restaurant clients of the new structure.
Salamanca's office called Int. 762-B "the strongest food delivery commission cap of its kind in the country." That description technically holds. It also describes a bill his Council was contractually obligated to pursue.
Who is absorbing this
Estimates for NYC restaurants with delivery as a consistent revenue channel, not occasional orders but real volume, run between 6,000 and 9,000. NYEH has a data request pending with DCWP for the precise figure. Whatever the number, the June 30 notification was a business event, not an administrative update.
Consider a restaurant moving $12,000 a month in delivery revenue, which is a reasonable baseline for a single-location independent doing meaningful volume. Under the old cap, the platform takes roughly $2,760. Under the enhanced services tier, that becomes approximately $5,160. The difference is $2,400 a month. On a 5% net margin, that number competes directly with what's left.
The operators most exposed to that math are not running high-volume Midtown concepts with strong dine-in traffic to cushion it. A significant share of NYC's delivery-dependent independents are in Jackson Heights, Sunset Park, the South Bronx, East Flatbush. Neighborhoods where delivery revenue built up during COVID and never got replaced by anything else. Where the operator is already carrying full market rent in a neighborhood that priced up around them, plus three rounds of minimum wage increases, plus food costs that haven't settled. The enhanced fee tier landed on top of all of it.
The operators who can afford the 43% and stay visible are, by definition, the ones with enough margin to absorb it. That tends to be multi-location operators and chains. The independent on one location does the math, stays on the basic plan to protect margin, and loses ground in search results on a schedule the platform sets.
That outcome was not an accident of the legislation. It was the predictable result of letting three platforms negotiate the terms.
Where the press was
Int. 762-B got covered. The trade press reported the cap went up, the settlement was noted, lobbying spend was on record, the Hospitality Alliance got a quote in. The bill passed.
What the coverage mostly didn't do was name the distinction between a policy decision and a legal obligation. The city did not look at delivery economics in spring 2025 and decide platforms deserved 43%. The city settled a lawsuit and the settlement required them to pass legislation. Those are different things. One is governance. The other is the cost of closing a case.
The framing in most outlets treated this as regulatory news, which it was, without asking whose interests it served, which it also was. No outlet ran the math on what the new tier costs a restaurant in Sunset Park running 5% margins. No one reported from the operator's side of the June 30 deadline. The coverage that existed gave the city credit for "the strongest cap in the country" without noting the city got there by settling a lawsuit it was losing.
That framing isn't fabricated. But it's incomplete in a way that costs operators specifically and no one else.
What the precedent looks like
NYC was the last major city still enforcing a meaningful delivery fee cap. Every other jurisdiction that tried cap legislation either let it expire or never made it permanent.
What the apps demonstrated through this case is a sequence other markets will recognize. File suit against the municipal fee cap. Establish enough legal credibility to create settlement pressure. Lobby the council members who will vote on exit terms. Settle when the math works. The outcome in NYC gives that approach a documented track record in the country's largest restaurant market. Cities that still have delivery fee caps, or are considering them, now have a clearer picture of the litigation risk attached to maintaining them.
Whether other cities draw the same conclusion is an open question. But the NYC settlement handed the platforms a reference point they didn't have before.
What operators are owed
The restaurants in this city understand, broadly, that delivery apps are not on their side. That's not a revelation. What most of them don't know, because no one covered it this way, is that the fee increase currently running through their P&L is the cost of a legal settlement they had no representation in.
The apps had legal teams. The city had legal teams. There were filings, negotiations, and a signed agreement dated April 23, 2025.
Six thousand restaurants had an email by June 30.
The minimum food press can do is make sure the people absorbing the cost know where it came from.
Editor's Note:
The 6,000 to 9,000 estimate reflects current industry analysis of NYC restaurants with delivery as a consistent revenue channel. NYEH has submitted a data request to DCWP for confirmed platform usage figures and will update this piece on receipt.
Like this? Explore more from:
