- DoorDash faces $1B lawsuit over iPhone vs. Android pricing.
- Allegations of unfair charges based on phone type.
- DoorDash denies claims, vows to fight.
DoorDash is facing a significant lawsuit worth $1 billion, which accuses the delivery app of charging customers unfairly based on the type of phone they use. The lawsuit, filed by Ross Hecox, a single father, and DoorDash user, claims that the service charges higher prices to iPhone users compared to Android users. The reason behind this alleged disparity is believed to be the fact that studies have shown iPhone users tend to earn more, which the lawsuit argues is an illegal practice.
According to the plaintiffs, DoorDash intentionally employs tactics described as “money grabs” to increase the prices for iPhone users by up to $2, even when the orders are identical. These additional charges are labeled as “expanded” range charges and are applied when a restaurant is outside the customer’s usual delivery area. However, the lawsuit argues that DoorDash fails to define what constitutes a “normal delivery area.”
Moreover, the lawsuit focus that the charges linked to a “delivery area” or “delivery radius” within the application are in fact influenced by the financial contribution made by a restaurant to DoorDash, as opposed to the restaurant’s location.
Evidence supporting the claims surfaced on TikTok, where a user demonstrated that two people ordering the same items on DoorDash could face different charges. Screenshots of DoorDash receipts showcased two customers ordering from the same Chick-fil-A at the same time, with the iPhone user being charged $27.39 and the Android user being charged $26.39 for hash brown bowls and fruit cups.
DoorDash has firmly denied these allegations, stating that it does not charge customers based on the type of phone they use. A DoorDash spokesperson emphasized the company’s rejection of the claims made in the lawsuit and expressed their commitment to vigorously fighting them.
DoorDash has also faced similar legal action earlier. In 2021, the company was sued in Chicago, accused of misleading customers and employing unfair business practices.