Food delivery platforms must get restaurant permission—but details matter
H.R. 10885 — To ensure delivery service providers have partnership agreements with the restaurants for which the providers deliver, and for other purposes. · Filed by Susie Lee (D-NV) · 5 cosponsors · Introduced Oct 22, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill would require food delivery companies (like DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub) to have written partnership agreements with restaurants before delivering their food. The stated purpose is to ensure restaurants consent to being listed on delivery platforms and to establish clear terms between the parties.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a contractual-consent requirement for delivery platforms, positioning it as a regulatory measure governing third-party marketplace conduct rather than a consumer protection or restaurant subsidy bill.
What the text implies
- If the bill does not specify fee caps or transparency requirements, platforms may comply by requiring restaurants to accept unfavorable terms in exchange for listing—shifting the burden rather than solving it.
- Restaurants may face increased compliance costs (legal review, negotiation) that could be passed to consumers via higher menu prices or delivery fees.
- The bill's scope on 'partnership agreements' is undefined: does it cover commission rates, data access, menu control, or only consent to listing? Ambiguity may invite litigation or regulatory interpretation.
- Small restaurants with limited negotiating power may still face take-it-or-leave-it terms from dominant platforms, rendering the requirement nominal.
Who it affects
Requiring partnership agreements protects restaurants from unauthorized listing and predatory terms, which may stabilize local food service and reduce hidden fees passed to consumers. However, the bill's actual scope, enforcement mechanism, and whether it caps delivery fees or protects consumer pricing remain unknown from metadata alone—implementation details will determine whether consumers benefit or face higher delivery costs.
Who stands to gain
- restaurants (if the bill grants meaningful negotiating leverage)
- potentially delivery platforms (if compliance costs are minimal and the requirement legitimizes thei
Named in the bill
delivery service providers, restaurants, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub
Where it stands
5 cosponsors: 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans.
- Oct 22, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Oct 22, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Oct 26, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,580 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-26.
“Food delivery platforms must get restaurant permission—but details matter” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr10885 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.