Uber Eats waived delivery fees in the name of supporting local restaurants, but some restaurants say Uber's 25% commission for take-out orders is too high
Context & Ripple Effects
Uber Eats enters this moment as the bright spot in Uber's portfolio — the company had called it profitable in 27 of 108 cities back in 2017, and quarantine demand just pushed US sales up 10% with a 30% spike in new delivery signups, per the surge in signups and sales last week. The fee waiver is a goodwill play aimed at locked-down local restaurants, but it only removes the customer-facing charge while the 25% take-out commission stays intact.
That split — visible fee dropped, hidden take rate kept — is the same tension that has shaped delivery economics since Uber Eats moved from flat $5 fees to distance-based variable pricing in 2018, and it is exactly the lever cities and competitors have been adjusting ever since.
First-order effects
- Restaurants get a marketing boost from waived delivery fees but surrender 25% of every take-out order, turning a goodwill gesture into a margin fight for the businesses it claims to support.
- The 30% jump in new delivery signups gives Uber Eats more supply capacity at the precise moment demand is spiking, strengthening its hand against restaurants with no other channel during quarantines.
Second-order effects
- DoorDash's response is already visible in the related coverage: it later moved to tiered plans with commissions from 15% to 30%, letting restaurants trade commission size for reach — a structure that directly answers the '25% is too high' complaint Uber is now fielding.
- Cities that see restaurants squeezed by take rates while platforms waive customer-facing fees gain a template for intervention; the later fee hikes in NYC and Seattle after wage-increase laws for gig workers show how quickly regulators move from commission complaints to direct price rules.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, delivery commissions become a regulated platform take rate — capped or tiered by law rather than set unilaterally — forcing apps like Uber Eats and DoorDash to compete on logistics and driver economics instead of the percentage they skim.
- Restaurants' leverage in this fight grows with every crisis that makes delivery their only channel, shifting bargaining power toward exclusivity demands and away from the open-listing model — a dynamic that later shows up in Uber's antitrust suit accusing DoorDash of coercing exclusive deals.
The trend: Food delivery platforms are being pushed from unilateral commission-setting toward regulated, tiered take rates as restaurants and cities contest who absorbs the cost of delivery.