DoorDash Offering Payment Plans for Food Delivery Sparks Backlash

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of Concern: Debt for Trivial Consumption

  • Many see BNPL for food delivery as predatory “nano-loans” targeting people with little savings, similar to payday lending and gambling apps.
  • Core sentiment: if someone needs financing for a <$50 meal, they can’t afford it; normalizing debt for takeout is viewed as socially harmful.
  • Others respond that people already do this with credit cards; Klarna at checkout is mostly a UI change, not a new behavior.

Debt, Poverty, and Personal Responsibility

  • Strong disagreement over whether bad spending habits are a major cause of poverty or mostly a symptom of deeper structural issues.
  • Some argue using credit for non-essentials (wings, pizzas) is almost always a bad decision, regardless of income level.
  • Others stress that people sometimes use such tools to bridge to payday or handle one-off emergencies, and that “stupidity protection” can shade into paternalism.

Legitimate vs. Hypothetical Use Cases

  • Edge cases proposed: large catering orders, group meals where organizer needs float, backup catering for events, or being broke just before payday.
  • Critics reply these are rare compared to everyday impulse orders, and product design (no minimum amount, prominent placement) reveals its true target: frequent small purchases by cash-strapped users.

Klarna vs. Credit Cards

  • Clarifications:
    • “Pay in 4” = four payments over ~6–8 weeks, effectively similar or slightly worse float than a normal credit card paid in full.
    • Business model: merchant fees plus high late fees/interest (often ~20–33% APR equivalent), and possibly monetizing transaction data.
  • Concern over “no credit check” / soft-pull positioning and repeated ACH attempts that trigger overdraft/NSF fees, seen as more predatory than traditional cards.
  • Some note credit cards at least operate in a mature, regulated ecosystem; newer fintech lenders feel opaque and under-regulated.

Platform and Regulatory Responsibility

  • Argument that businesses offload risk to lenders and ignore whether customers can actually afford purchases, creating long-term reputational and social costs.
  • Counterargument: society already permits harmful choices (casinos, alcohol); banning BNPL for food while allowing those is inconsistent.
  • Several call for regulatory caps on interest/fees and tighter oversight of BNPL, rather than banning the feature outright.

Geographic and Cultural Context

  • Commenters from Europe/UK/Sweden report that 0%-installment and using Klarna for everyday purchases, including food, is normalized and largely uncontroversial.
  • Some speculate US backlash is shaped by its extreme consumer-debt culture and prior crises, or by incumbent card networks protecting their turf.