DoorDash to acquire Instacart
DoorDash’s planned $17B acquisition of Instacart is prompting concern about growing concentration in food and grocery delivery, with many fearing higher prices, worse service, and fewer alternatives for restaurants, workers, and consumers. Commenters highlight how gig platforms already impose heavy fees on eateries and customers while paying delivery workers poorly, and worry consolidation will strengthen that model. Others note that on-demand delivery is a major quality-of-life improvement for some groups — from elderly and disabled people to overworked parents — but question whether such a system should be dominated by a few lightly regulated, profit‑driven intermediaries.
Market structure & antitrust
- Many see the merger as classic consolidation: fewer major 3rd‑party food/grocery platforms (DoorDash + Instacart + Uber Eats dominate; some estimates put DD+IC at ~77% of 3rd‑party delivery).
- Some argue antitrust should clearly scrutinize or block it; others claim grocery delivery competition is actually with Walmart, Amazon, and big chains’ own apps, not between DD and Instacart.
- Debate over whether “luxury” services (delivery, games, etc.) should get the same antitrust scrutiny; some say yes because antitrust shouldn’t depend on “importance.”
Value and necessity of delivery
- Strong split: some view restaurant delivery as a frivolous luxury driven by laziness; others emphasize real needs:
- Elderly, disabled, car‑less, immunocompromised, rural residents, parents of young children.
- Grocery delivery in particular is framed as a major quality‑of‑life improvement and sometimes essential; restaurant delivery less so.
- Several people have intentionally quit using 3rd‑party apps, citing cost, health, and hassle, and say life improved.
Impact on workers and restaurants
- Widespread criticism of exploitative gig model:
- Low pay, tip‑dependence, algorithmic pressure, deactivations, safety issues.
- NYC recovered ~$131M in underpaid wages from DoorDash; some note many workers may be undocumented and highly vulnerable.
- Drivers describe dark patterns: hidden tips, stacked orders, punishment for rejecting low‑pay gigs, and seasonal gluts of drivers depressing wages.
- Restaurants often see platforms as “necessary evil”: high commissions (~15–30%), higher in‑app prices, operational chaos, and line‑cutting drivers. Some feel coerced by customer demand to stay on the apps.
Pricing, fees, and economics
- Multiple breakdowns show:
- Customers paying 40–70% markups vs in‑person (item upcharges, service fees, delivery fees, tips, sometimes “regulatory response” fees).
- Drivers often net around minimum wage after expenses.
- Platforms report large gross margins, with far more spent on corporate overhead, marketing, and R&D than on frontline labor.
- Some argue the post‑ZIRP model is fundamentally weak and only worked while VC was subsidizing; others think once locked‑in, it’s a “very easy business to maintain.”
User experience and quality
- Reports of:
- Cold/late food, missing items, poor produce selection, moldy fruit, incorrect or missing orders.
- Rude or frantic drivers, line‑cutting, and restaurants prioritizing app orders over dine‑in guests.
- Others report largely positive experiences, especially with grocery delivery and when tipping well; note technical integration with major grocers and Costco.
Governance, law, and politics
- One high‑profile anecdote: Instacart allegedly fired an employee after approving her run for public office and learning she’d criticize a Republican incumbent; lawsuit cites California protections for candidates.
- Discussion of at‑will employment, weak US worker protections, mandatory arbitration, and how easy it is to fire people for “non‑protected” reasons.
- Some propose radical alternatives: municipal or publicly run delivery utilities; others strongly oppose being taxed for such services.
Broader reflections
- Many see the merger as another step in “enshittification”: platforms inserting themselves as rent‑seeking middlemen, degrading conditions for restaurants, workers, and eventually customers.
- Others emphasize consumer responsibility: these platforms thrive because millions keep paying the premium for convenience despite visible downsides.