The Consumer Ombudsman has intervened in the unlawful practices of Delivery Hero Finland Oy’s Foodora platform, in relation to, for example, contract terms and the provision of price information. Delivery Hero committed to changing its practices and contract terms at the request of the Consumer Ombudsman.
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to the indication of prices on the Foodora platform. Via the Foodora platform, consumers can order restaurant meals for home delivery or pick them up from the restaurant.
In addition to the price of the food item, the consumer might also have to pay a service fee and a delivery fee. These were indicated in small print in the restaurant view on the platform and disappeared from view as the consumer browsed the view. Since other charges were not communicated as clearly as the prices of the food items, the consumer might have formed the impression at that stage of the ordering process that they would only pay the price of the food item. Delivery Hero committed to clearly stating all charges when announcing, for example, the price of a food item during the purchasing process, in such a clear way that the consumer cannot overlook miss them.
Additionally, when the consumer added products to the cart in the mobile versions of the platform, a “View Cart” bar appeared showing the a price. However, the price did not always include all charges applicable to the consumer, such as service and delivery fees, and it could increase when transitioning to the cart. Delivery Hero committed to presenting the total price of the order clearly and in a timely manner on the platform in the future. The total price will take into account any charges applicable to the consumer that are known to Delivery Hero at that stage of the ordering process.
”Price is one of the key pieces of information on which consumers base their decisions. Therefore, it is especially important that the information regarding it is clear and accurate at all stages of the ordering process.”
Once the contract is formed, the order must be fulfilled
Delivery Hero’s terms stated that the consumer’s order becomes binding only when Delivery Hero accepts the order. The Consumer Ombudsman found that this condition deviated from the usual practice, where the consumer’s order binds the seller as soon as the order is made, not only when it is separately accepted. The Consumer Ombudsman deemed it contrary to consumer protection law that the Foodora platform’s ordering process did not clearly inform about the deviating condition. Delivery Hero committed to providing information about the contract model more clearly in the ordering process in the future.
Delivery Hero reserved the right in its terms to cancel the order if the ordered product was out of stock or if Delivery Hero or its delivery partner was otherwise unable to deliver the products. The Consumer Ombudsman noted that once the contract is formed, it is Delivery Hero’s obligation to fulfill the contract, and thus deemed the contract term unfair. Delivery Hero committed to changing the contract term.
Consumer rights must be ensured in cases of delays and defects
Consumers made reports to the FCCA Consumer Advisory Services and the Consumer Ombudsman regarding prolonged delivery times for orders and that they had no possibility to cancel delayed orders. The Consumer Ombudsman reminded that the company must ensure that the consumer’s right to cancel the transaction in cases of delay is fulfilled in practice. Delivery Hero committed to organizing its customer service so that requests regarding the cancellation of the consumer’s transaction are handled efficiently.
The Consumer Ombudsman also received reports from consumers stating that Delivery Hero had not provided monetary compensations for delays and defects, nor monetary refunds for unjustified charges, but rather provided them in the form of vouchers, despite consumer requests. However, the seller must proactively offer the consumer monetary compensations or refunds if the compensations or refunds are legally due.
”If a company wants to offer, for example, a voucher cash payment as an alternative to the monetary compensation or refund, for example, a voucher, the consumer must be given a genuine choice between the monetary cash payment and the voucher. The exercise of consumer rights should not be made more difficult, for example, by offering a monetary payment only upon the consumer's request.”
Delivery Hero committed to offering monetary refunds in cash more proactively as the primary option, except when a lunch benefit has been used as the payment method. Delivery Hero also committed to clearly informing the consumer about the key terms of the vouchers, such as the usage locationwhat the voucher can be used for and its validity period.
Misleading information must not be provided about the validity of the an offer
Consumers were shown offers on the Foodora platform, where the available time to utilize the offer was presented with a timer lasting 15 minutes. According to the Consumer Ombudsman’s observations, the timer restarted immediately in some cases after it ended. According to Delivery Hero, the offer was intended to be available to the consumer again after 10 minutes.
The Consumer Ombudsman found that the timer indicating the available time to utilize the offers was inaccurate, as utilizing the offers did not require placing an order within 15 minutes. The offer was available to the consumer immediately or soon after the timer expired, thus creating a false sense of urgency. Delivery Hero committed to changing its procedures so that no misleading impression is created regarding the duration of the offers.
The Consumer Ombudsman also assessed the legality of the time Delivery Hero’s timing of chargeds for meal orders but found no issues.
Read more:
Terms and marketing of the a food delivery platform, Consumer Ombudsman’s decision 19.2.2025