70 comments

[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 4.0 ms ] thread
I vividly remember the ZIRP era when there was a new food delivery (or e-scooter) startup almost every week.
food delivery stayed around, the e scooters not so much
I’d cry “antitrust” but who are we kidding at this point. The relevant parties have likely been paid off already.
But doordash says this merger means more choice for the consumer, how could antitrust play a role here? I mean, unless they're lying about removing choices from the market place will result in more choices in the market place, but doordash wouldn't do that would they?
While corruption is certainly a challenge, focusing on it tends to limit conversation.

Perhaps we might instead focus on diagnosis and corrective action of systemic issues in our legal/business environment.

For example, antitrust action can spur innovation: Bell/AT&T licensed Unix source code for a nominal fee, largely because the 1956 consent decree restricted Bell/AT&T from selling products outside telecommunications.

"DoorDash and Instacart believe that communities benefit when Main Street competes"

That's rich! Communities benefit when small businesses compete against each other. Announced as part of a merger of two giant public companies.

Am I on the wrong side of perspective? I imagine of these companies are at big risk in a turn down with low margin - competitive space. The model is a tough one to work

Merging reduces platform inefficiencies and drivers can work both situation.

I am actually amazed both companies are alive and making a profit.

> Merging reduces platform inefficiencies

This was literally why Rockefeller was a big proponent of the monopoly. Unfortunately exploitation is the tradeoff that is enables

It's an argument he advanced in favour of monopolies. Then reason he was in favour of being a monopoly was, of course, that it gave him more money.
I saw this show up in my newsreader and first thing that crossed my mind was the textbook example of eBay / PayPal acquiring everything, leaving us with probably the worst situation possible for auctions and payments.
> DoorDash to Acquire Instacart to Help Local Stores Win

> to Help Local Stores Win

Any local store will tell you DD is a necessary evil they put up with but strongly dislike overall. From the % of sales they take to the incredibly rude delivery drivers, DD is not well liked.

On multiple occasions a family member's employees (or they, themselves) have had a DD delivery driver cut to the front of the line, interrupt the cashier, and shove their phone in their face. No words, no anything, just "here is the code/screen/whatever I need to show you to pick up the order". DD doesn't let stores rate delivery drivers so there isn't any recourse.

Yeah mixed blessing at best. Increased volume, but not every 30-table restaurant is set up to do much more; kitchens are sized to expected in-person dining.

And all the stuff you mention.

The one restaurant owner I know who’s happy with DD set up an entirely separate kitchen in an industrial park. But to get to the DD revenue necessary to justify that investment, he had a couple of years of DD hell in his main restaurant.

I hate industrial/ghost kitchens so much. Accidentally ordered from one with friends and it was so off-putting.

Could see the kitchen areas through a window and they weren't necessarily dirty, but looked sketchy for some reason. Few people, robots delivering orders, one set of cooks making the food. Just dystopian.

We might as well just build ready to eat food factories that pipe the slop directly into your house. We got rid of the "inconvenience" of going out to eat and enjoying a restaurant. Why not get rid of the pesky delivery middle-man too?

That sounds like a scary investment to make on behalf of what's effectively a single customer. Without some kind of contractual commitment that locks in volume and price, they would really have you over a barrel.
I worked at a local grocery store while unemployed, and I actually PREFERRED the Doordash/Instacart customers.

Quite a few of them spoke no English, so yes, they'd just present their phone screen. I didn't take it as rude. It was a very clear and direct communication. A simple scan, and boom, nothing further needed, I could just scan their items. They almost always helped with doing thier own bagging: Time is money, after all.

The supermarket where I shop has a specific checkout station for delivery drivers. I have never seen one in a normal checkout line (not that it might be very obvious, especially if they were shopping not just picking up an order).

What I don't understand is why DD gets any cut of the store's profit. They should be paying retail like anyone else, and their customer paying for the delivery costs.

The supermarket I worked at had a split system. Our internal delivery people had their own checkout area, but it wasn't open 24/7. Doordash and the like had to go through the regular lines regardless.
because they can get away with it and some VCs say best companies dont have customers, they have hostages.
Going by other comments in this thread it seems like if you kicked out the driver they'd probably get fired from Doordash.
Instacart fired my wife for running for office. My wife asked for approval to run from her boss, the Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, who approved it and the company was excited for her to run.

A couple days after my wife launched her campaign, Instacart did a 180 and told her they had to fire her for running. Bad for business to run for office and criticize dear leader!

My wife was also pregnant and she told them. They fired her the next day.

Congratulations on the merger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/12/15/instacart...

I am of course very sympathetic to your wife and think it is outrageous that someone should lose their job this way but also given the insane behavior of the Trump administration, it seems like Instacart had no choice. I hope she wins the lawsuit and gets paid out but I can’t hate Instacart for being pragmatic.
> I can’t hate Instacart for being pragmatic

Can you criticize them instead for firing her for something that their Chief Corporate Affairs Officer explicitly gave her permission to do? If it was a matter of pragmatism, they could have declined her request for permission. (One might separately argue about whether this should be a matter of right vs a matter of permission, but regardless, she did seek permission and was granted it.)

>> but also given the insane behavior of the Trump administration, it seems like Instacart had no choice

That's a terrible attitude that's resulted in some of the worst behaviour of capitulation history has ever recorded. What will you call their "pragmatism" when your the target?

I see this totally wild she even had to ask permission for running for office, or at least from an European perspective.
I don't understand why this is getting downvoted, I'm surprised as well
I mean, running for office is essentially a full time job right?

It seems totally reasonable to both have a law that protects a citizen’s right to run for office without losing their job, but it also seems reasonable to require some sort of coordination with an employer.

(Knowing nothing about this, it is seems like it should work roughly like an extended jury duty.)

They always had a slimy reputation. I interviewed there very early on and two of the engineers interviewing me told me they fire people 1 day from vesting constantly...
Fascinatingly, this is not prima facie illegal in many US states! Wow. We live in a corporatist hell hole don’t we?
What would be illegal about firing an employee who you think is causing your company to get a bad image?
What would be the consequences of ensuring that only those with enough personal wealth to be able to go without a job while campaigning can run for office?
The thing about legality is that you kinda get to chose. In your case the companies' interests weight more than the people's interest.

For example in the US it's totally legal to spy on your employees with key loggers &co, in most of Europe it isn't

Even if an employee has the authority to make a decision, executive leadership should still have the legal right to terminate someone if they disagree with that choice.
Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla for a $1k political donation.

Corporatist hellhole was your reaction to that too I imagine.

* Technically resigned, but there was significant pressure from Mozilla.

I'm curious to hear other people's perspectives on why they think they should be illegal?

For example: Suppose you hire someone to help you move furniture.

You can decide you dont like the color of their shoes and tell them to kick rocks.

You dont owe anyone a job, and labor for pay is a contractual agreement, nothing more.

It should be illegal to do what instacart did to your wife.
My son lost his job so did InstaCart for a while. He got really good at it and started making good money. Then they sent him to an apartment complex but didn't give him an apartment number.

He called support who contacted the customer and said they were on their way and could he wait five minutes. Of course he did but 30 minutes went by.

Contacted support again who said customer would be there in five minutes but, 15 minutes later, support said to just take the goods back to the store.

He took the goods back to the store but the store refused to accept them. Support said he could just donate them or keep them.

Despite showing the back and forth text messages, he was deactivated for not delivering to the customer.

We're supposed to sue companies when they treat us like this but few of us do because it's a difficult process. Companies know this and act with impunity.
Wow. Cant you sue for wrongful termination ? I am assuming this was considered and not followed through. What are the legal details here ?
Literally article's description:

> Lisa Vedernikova Khanna, a candidate in Virginia, says in a lawsuit that the mobile shopping giant cited concerns her bid could hurt the company with President Donald Trump.

> Bad for business to run for office and criticize a Republican incumbent!

I think it's a fully justified reason. If I'm in a senior position and I say something that in someway hurts the company reputation/income, I would be fired. If the company liveness depend on me being fired, the I think the decision is justified.

And still people will continue to use their services. :(
"More Choice for Consumers"

A truly laughable fig leaf for the non-existent anti-trust regulators.

Man, can only imagine this is more bad news for delivery drivers.
Hey - dumb question that is probably a derail: Is there a practical reason in the US to use Instacart over one of the Amazon services? It seems like they are fighting an uphill battle - Amazon has its own grocery warehouses (Prime food), and owns Whole foods. I haven't cross-shopped recently, but am having a hard time imagining them competing on price with either of those services. I suppose the obvious reason is you aren't limited to those two stores, so if you want specialty items, nice baked goods etc you would use Instacart?
They do compete on price. Amazon charges for Prime, charges extra for delivery, and Whole Foods is generally among the more expensive grocery stores. Instacart offers a ton of cheap alternatives.
Do you find it, total price charged to card, to be competitive? What if you already have a Prime membership?
> Do you find it, total price charged to card, to be competitive?

Yes. Instacart has low cost retailers like Walmart and Aldi in many areas, and their prices blow Amazon groceries away. Now Walmart does also have their own service, so technically you can do that, but then you're limited to just them.

Instacart is also integrated with several stores. Kroger and Costco both use Instacart for their pickup and delivery services in their own apps.
Since some other people are posting links about DoorDash, here’s one: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mayor-mamdani...

From the NYT version of this story:

> DoorDash said the median payment to be returned to workers amounts to around $48. > City officials said about 700 workers are owed more than $10,000 each; more than 27,000 workers are owed more than $1,000; and more than 4,000 workers are owed more than $5,000.

DoorDash also spent (from what I can tell) (1+1.4+1.8) million dollars to campaign against Mamdani.

Great, both are generally terrible. Nothing like ordering a pizza and having it sit in someone's car for an hour with a driver who has no attachment to the restaurant, who could not care less about what you think. At least delivery drivers employed by the restaurant had some slight incentive to get food to you while it was still edible.

Third party delivery services essentially break the chain of responsibility... food late and cold? tough luck, but please tip in advance. If you don't tip your driver will be very mad at you, maybe they'll text you about it, and we pay them so poorly that it's actually your fault for keeping them impoverished. Talk to our customer service bots and maybe we'll give you a $5 coupon for your next Doordash order.

On the other countering opinion, I am a generally happy customer of both parties for years now (I pay for dashpass). I think I’m probably one of their heavier users as I use both services multiple times per week. Being a caretaker and a new father simultaneously where both DoorDash and Instacart have been a blessing.

Food generally arrives warm and if not, a quick heat up in the air fryer generally solves most things. Soup based noodles are generally packed separately that you need to prepare it at home anyway.

My main gripe is there is the general occasional missed small item (like sauces, a drink), which I do complain about in DD. I imagine DD does provide this feedback to restaurants because it has been trending better over time.

I do deliveries via gig apps for extra cash and to get away from the computer and it's basically a complete toss up.

Some people are professional about it (I bring my own drink carriers, food bags, etc and have a minor Andretti gene so orders are as quick as the law allows), but most of the others I see doing it may as well not be. Slow, lazy, check nothing, and look like they just fell out of a methadone clinic (read: not the person you want showing up at your door in the dark at 8pm).

It's frustrating if you try to do it properly but get judged by customers like you're some out of work junkie (when, ironically, most people I deliver to live in a lower-income situation than I do).

From the driver's side, you get inundated with low-paying orders, often rapid-fire as you're driving to either pick up or deliver another order (like so bad that if you're not paying attention, you could get into an accident). Like literal Pavlov's dog, bell jingling over the top of the navigation instructions and a big pop up on screen. Essentially [1].

The entire thing is a psychological rat trap (by design as best as I can tell as these apps aren't terribly complicated to build/design; just scale), so it's not a total surprise when your driver fails to provide good service. They actually make it quite difficult to provide good service (e.g., I routinely get "already picked up" orders on my late night runs w/ no compensation for sitting/waiting on restaurant staff).

I think a lot of people should try doing deliveries via these apps a few times just to experience it. The psychological pressure alone likely makes a lot of people crack. It's all quite fucked up.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7my1G0TrwT8

I'm mostly hoping this doesn't end up affecting Costco delivery, which works reasonably well and uses Instacart behind the scenes.
Doordash as an app or a business model always feel scammy and full of dark patterns.

With this merger I have a feeling that things are only going to go worse.

Wow, really didn't see this one coming.
These two slimy companies do belong to each other. Perfect match made in hell.
Great, just one less competitor in the marketplace.
My initial take to this news was “what about anti trust?!” But I was surprised to learn that DD is essentially non existent in grocery delivery and instacart’s non grocery deliveries are powered by Uber Eats. For two massive brands they really don’t offer the same product.(edit: not effectively, at least) If anything maybe this helps Instacart/DD compete in grocery with the real giants in Walmart and Amazon. I wouldn’t be mad to see DOJ block this but I was just surprised to learn about the landscape of grocery delivery.
> compete in grocery with the real giants in Walmart

In my area Walmart is on Instacart and I've often wondered how that squares with their own delivery service.

Interesting perspective.

They do serve the same market for gig workers that don’t want to be ride share drivers, though, right? I wonder what their market share is for that.

Could we have more discussion of our current legal/business environment and the economic opportunities it affords/constrains. If the merger is approved via consumer welfare standard, should this approval be contingent upon some constraints? For example, should DoorDash be restricted from participating in the market it coordinates? If it’s a near monopoly in some regions, how will price be controlled without market pressure?

Historically, antitrust action also considers economic opportunity: Bell/AT&T licensed Unix source code for a nominal fee, largely because the 1956 consent decree restricted Bell/AT&T from selling products outside telecommunications.

Is it even possible for doordash to be a monopoly? I understand that just about anyone can set up a website advertising food delivery for cheaper.
I just want to say that the colour contrast on this post is atrocious.

#999999 on a white background is a 2.84:1 contrast ratio, when the minimum requirement for body text is 4.5:1. So this page technically violates the ADA and other accessibility laws.

I hate this shit. Just another shameless ploy to find choke points in markets and further immiserate all participants in a two-sided market but the rentiers.