DoorDash will face a hearing before Canada’s Competition Tribunal beginning October 13, 2026, as the federal Competition Bureau pursues allegations that the delivery platform misled consumers through advertised prices, mandatory fees and discount claims.
The hearing is scheduled to take place in Ottawa and is expected to continue on October 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, followed by additional hearing dates on November 2 and 3. The case is listed as Commissioner of Competition v. DoorDash Inc. and DoorDash Technologies Canada Inc., file CT-2025-002. The Tribunal’s upcoming hearings schedule lists the matter.
Table of Contents
What the DoorDash case is about
The Competition Bureau filed its application in June 2025, alleging that DoorDash promoted delivery services at prices consumers could not actually pay because additional mandatory charges were added during the ordering process.
The Bureau describes the alleged practice as “drip pricing.” Under Canada’s Competition Act, businesses generally cannot advertise a price that is unattainable because fixed mandatory fees are added later, unless those charges are imposed by the government, such as a sales tax. The Competition Bureau says such practices are prohibited under the Act.
According to the Bureau’s application, the fees at issue include service fees, delivery fees, expanded-range fees, small-order fees and regulatory-response fees. The regulator also alleges that some charges were presented in a way that could give consumers the impression they were government-imposed taxes rather than fees set by DoorDash.
The application says the alleged conduct continued for more than nine years and that DoorDash collected nearly $1 billion in mandatory fees connected to the transactions under review. Those figures are allegations contained in the Bureau’s case and have not been proven by the Tribunal.
What the Competition Bureau is asking for
The Commissioner of Competition is asking the Tribunal to order DoorDash to stop the alleged conduct and prevent substantially similar practices for up to 10 years.
The Bureau is also seeking an administrative monetary penalty, public notices about the Tribunal’s determination and an amount that could be distributed to affected consumers as restitution. The final outcome, including whether any payment is ordered and how it would be calculated, will depend on the evidence and the Tribunal’s decision. The notice of application sets out the requested remedies.
The case includes allegations involving both DoorDash Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary, DoorDash Technologies Canada Inc. The application identifies DoorDash’s websites and mobile applications as platforms through which consumers order food and other retail goods from restaurants, grocery stores and convenience stores.
DoorDash disputes the allegations
DoorDash has denied that it concealed fees or misled consumers. In a company statement issued after the Bureau launched the case, DoorDash said charges were disclosed throughout the ordering process, including before customers submitted final payment.
The company said the fees help operate the platform and pay Dashers, and described the Bureau’s application as excessively punitive. DoorDash said it intended to defend itself and resolve the matter through the legal process. DoorDash’s response to the allegations outlines the company’s position.
Because the proceedings remain unresolved, the allegations from either side should not be treated as findings of fact. The Tribunal will assess the evidence, legal arguments and applicable provisions of the Competition Act.
Why the hearing matters for Canadian consumers
The DoorDash case is one of several recent Canadian enforcement actions focused on the way businesses display prices online. The central issue is whether consumers can make a meaningful purchasing decision from the initial price shown to them or whether the final cost is only revealed after they have progressed through the checkout process.
The Competition Bureau has identified drip pricing as a priority in digital marketplaces, where mandatory charges can appear alongside optional tips, taxes and promotional discounts. The distinction matters because consumers may interpret a charge labelled or positioned like a tax differently from a company-imposed fee.
The Bureau has pointed to the Competition Tribunal’s 2024 decision involving Cineplex as an example of how misleading online price representations can lead to significant penalties. In that case, the Tribunal ordered Cineplex to pay $39 million and stop the conduct at issue.
A decision in the DoorDash proceeding could provide further guidance for food-delivery companies, retailers and other online platforms about how prices, discounts and mandatory charges must be presented to Canadian customers.
What happens next in the DoorDash case
The next major step is the scheduled hearing beginning October 13, 2026, in Ottawa. The Tribunal’s schedule lists the matter as a hearing of the application, rather than a final decision.
At the hearing, the parties are expected to present evidence and legal submissions concerning the advertised prices, fee disclosures, discount representations and the remedies sought by the Competition Bureau.
Consumers do not need to take action simply because the hearing has been scheduled. Any restitution process would require a separate order and instructions from the Tribunal if the Bureau succeeds in obtaining consumer compensation.
Until a decision is released, DoorDash remains entitled to defend the application, and the Bureau’s allegations remain unproven.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does the DoorDash Competition Tribunal hearing begin?
The hearing is scheduled to begin on October 13, 2026, in Ottawa, with additional dates continuing through October 23 and on November 2 and 3.
What is the Competition Bureau alleging against DoorDash?
The Bureau alleges that DoorDash advertised prices and discounts that were not attainable after mandatory fees were added and that some fees appeared to be government-imposed charges.
What is drip pricing?
Drip pricing is the practice of advertising a price and adding mandatory charges later in the purchasing process, making the initial price unattainable.
Has DoorDash been found guilty or liable?
No. The case is still before the Competition Tribunal, and the Bureau’s allegations have not been proven.
Could DoorDash customers receive money?
The Bureau is seeking restitution, but any consumer payment would depend on a Tribunal order and later instructions about eligibility and distribution.
Fact-Checked: Key case allegations, requested remedies and hearing dates were checked against the Competition Bureau’s filing and the Competition Tribunal’s official schedule.
Disclaimer: This article reports allegations in an ongoing legal proceeding and is not legal advice or a finding against DoorDash.