The Federal Trade Commission has begun mailing more than $23.8 million to 640,038 Grubhub drivers and diners the agency says were harmed by the delivery company’s deceptive earnings promises and blocked customer accounts. Unlike most class-action payouts, nobody had to file a claim or prove anything to get on the list — the FTC already identified who is owed money and how much. The catch is timing: a recipient who lets a paper check sit too long, or ignores a PayPal notice, can lose a payment that required no paperwork to earn, over a deadline that has nothing to do with eligibility.
The deceptive-earnings case behind the payments
The refunds trace back to a December 2024 complaint the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General filed against Grubhub, alleging the company misled delivery drivers about how much money they could expect to earn and blocked diners from accessing their own accounts, including funds tied to gift cards. Investigators said Grubhub also listed restaurants on its platform without the businesses’ permission, a practice that let the company collect commissions on orders those restaurants never agreed to fulfill. The case folded three separate harms — to drivers, diners and small businesses — into a single enforcement action.
Grubhub settled without admitting wrongdoing. According to the agency’s Grubhub Refunds page, the total payout of more than $23.8 million works out to an average under $40 per recipient once spread across all 640,038 people, though individual amounts vary depending on how each driver or diner was affected. Drivers who were shorted on promised earnings and diners locked out of prepaid balances make up the bulk of the list.
What separates this case from a typical class action is that consumers never had to apply. The FTC pulled eligibility directly from Grubhub’s own records under the settlement terms, then handed distribution to a third-party administrator instead of requiring anyone to submit proof of harm.
The blocked-account allegation carries its own weight for older diners in particular, since gift cards purchased as holiday or birthday presents are a common way family members top up an account for someone who orders delivery less often on their own. A locked account meant that balance sat unreachable, regardless of whether the diner ever knew a dispute with Grubhub was underway. The settlement treats that lost access the same as a driver’s shorted paycheck — both are folded into the same $23.8 million pool rather than split into separate funds with separate rules.
Free retirement updates: One number can cost or save hundreds a month in retirement. The free Retirement Shield newsletter surfaces the ones worth knowing. Sign up free.
The 90-day window that can cost people their money
The mechanism for collecting carries real risk for anyone who sets a check aside. The FTC’s notice instructs recipients to cash a mailed check within 90 days of receiving it; a check left in a drawer past that window becomes void, and the agency does not automatically reissue an expired check without the recipient contacting the administrator. PayPal payments move on a tighter clock — those must be accepted within 30 days, or the transfer is returned and treated as declined.
Analytics Consulting LLC is handling distribution for the FTC, and the agency lists a dedicated line, 1-888-446-4992, for anyone with questions about a payment that never arrived or a check that already expired. The FTC’s refund FAQ notes the agency does not charge a fee to issue these payments and never asks a recipient to pay anything upfront to receive money it is already sending, a detail worth remembering given how often scammers impersonate legitimate refund programs.
A recipient who moved recently, or who shared a household mailing address with a former driver or account holder, faces the added risk of a check arriving at an old address altogether. The administrator’s line is the correct first call in that situation rather than assuming a payment simply was not sent, since the FTC’s distribution list was built from historical Grubhub account records that may not reflect a person’s current address.
For a household living on a fixed income, a check that arrives unannounced can easily get set aside with the rest of the mail, especially if the amount looks modest next to the total settlement figure reported in the news. The 90-day clock does not pause for that kind of oversight.
Why the FTC pursued three kinds of harm at once
The Grubhub case fits a broader pattern in how the FTC treats gig-economy platforms, where one company’s practices can injure workers, customers and business partners through entirely different mechanisms. The original complaint argued that Grubhub’s driver-earnings estimates created false expectations that shaped which jobs people accepted, while separately blocking diners from redeeming money already loaded onto their accounts — two harms that would normally generate two lawsuits.
Bundling the claims into one case let regulators size the penalty against the full scope of the conduct rather than settling each harm separately, and it explains why the recipient list spans both drivers and diners. The FTC and Illinois Attorney General’s original 2024 announcement also cited harm to small businesses whose restaurants were listed without permission, though that portion of the case did not generate direct consumer payments.
For anyone who drove for Grubhub or ordered through the app during the period the FTC investigated, checking eligibility costs nothing more than a look at recent mail or a call to the administrator’s line — but the payment is only real money once it clears a bank or a PayPal balance inside the window the agency set.
This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
More Financial Reading
