FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

Grubhub Case Ends in Consent Settlement; $23.8 Million Going to 640,038 Consumers

TechCrunch reports the Federal Trade Commission is distributing the money to Grubhub drivers and customers under the settlement of a suit filed in December 2024.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 12, 2026, 8:59 p.m. ET
Developing

This matter is open. Agencies announce the actions they bring far more reliably than the ones they lose, so an action reported here may since have been settled, dismissed or decided without a further announcement.

More on this incident

A case brought against the food delivery company Grubhub by the Federal Trade Commission and the Illinois Attorney General has been resolved by rather than by a trial verdict, and payments are now going out, according to TechCrunch. The FTC is distributing $23.8 million to 640,038 consumers, including Grubhub drivers and customers, TechCrunch reported. The suit was filed in federal district court in December 2024. TechCrunch reported that the complaint accused Grubhub of making misleading claims about how much drivers could earn, restricting customers' access to their accounts and money, and listing restaurants on its platform without permission. The complaint alleged that as many as 325,000 unaffiliated restaurants were listed to make the platform appear larger, and that Grubhub sometimes refused to remove restaurants that asked to be taken off, instead allegedly trying to convince some to enter paid partnerships. Those remain allegations. Because the case ended in a settlement rather than a ruling, the claims were never tested at trial, and TechCrunch's report describes no admission of wrongdoing by Grubhub and no finding of liability by the court. Alongside the money, TechCrunch reported, the settlement required Grubhub to change its practices around advertising driver earnings, account restrictions, and restaurant listings.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 314 Aug 2026, 06:51current

    Added Yahoo Finance reporting on payment method (mailed check and PayPal) and its account of the required practice changes, including restaurant consent before listing.

  2. Version 213 Aug 2026, 12:58

    Added JD Journal reporting on the $25 million payment, the mostly suspended $140 million judgment, and the broader fee-disclosure, subscription-cancellation and driver-earnings allegations.

  3. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:59current

    First published.

  4. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:18current

    First published.

  5. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:25

    First published.

  6. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:59current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.