A delivery marketplace cannot make a restaurant a partner simply by putting its menu online. Grubhub agreed in August 2025 to pay $7.1 million in a proposed settlement over allegations that it advertised restaurant partnerships without permission. Reuters reported the agreement. It still needed court approval at this post’s date.
The restaurants said unauthorized listings confused customers and harmed their reputations. I understand the complaint: a customer sees a restaurant’s name and expects that restaurant to stand behind the order. A bad handoff can then become the merchant’s problem even when it never agreed to the arrangement.
A settlement resolves claims on agreed terms; it does not establish every allegation as a court finding. Grubhub denied wrongdoing. That distinction should survive an opinion about the practice.
The company had already faced FTC action over fees, driver pay claims, and unauthorized listings. Those cases made platform trust a concrete operating issue.
Wonder’s acquisition of Grubhub belongs beside that history, but the lawsuits alone do not explain the purchase price. Enterprise value, transferred debt, and sale proceeds also differ. My earlier percentage-loss comparison ignored those distinctions.
A larger menu makes an app look useful. Merchant consent determines whether the platform can actually deliver on the relationship it displays.