Jan 16, 2026
Many who have ordered food through a delivery app have dealt with various frustrations that can come along with it: late arrivals, wrong addresses, or the delivery never shows up at all. They then may find themselves stuck fighting for a refund.
Fortunately, change may be on the horizon. California recently implemented a new law requiring food delivery apps to issue full cash refunds, rather than in-app credits, when orders go missing or are incorrect and to make the process easier by providing customers with access to human customer service agents.
Advertisement
While this law doesn’t apply nationwide, California’s move could have ripple effects, pressuring delivery apps to rethink refund policies across the country and encouraging other states to follow suit.
How California’s new food delivery law works
Starting January 1, 2026, if an order from a food delivery app, such as Uber Eats, DoorDash or Grubhub, is incorrect, never shows up or is only partially filled, people in California are entitled to receive a refund to their original payment method rather than in-app credit.
Named Assembly Bill 578, this new law also requires all food delivery apps operating in California to:
- Provide a transparent, itemized breakdown of prices and fees for customers and delivery workers
- Prohibit using tips or gratuities to offset the base pay of drivers
- Ensure customers can connect with a real human customer service agent when automated systems fail to address their concerns (1)
Currently, most major delivery apps route refund requests through automated in-app forms or chatbots. These systems often cap the number of refunds a customer can request and make it extremely difficult to speak with a real person, even when an order clearly goes wrong.
Must Read
- Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s what it is and the simple steps to fix it ASAP
- Robert Kiyosaki begs investors not to miss this ‘explosion’ — says this 1 asset will surge 400% in a year
- Vanguard reveals what could be coming for U.S. stocks, and it’s raising alarm bells for retirees. Here’s why and how to protect yourself
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
The implications of required refunds
These changes help protect people’s rights during a time when the cost-of-living crisis is really starting to bite and affect millions of households.
This is no longer a niche issue. Food delivery has shifted from an occasional convenience to a regular expense for many Americans. Yet when something goes wrong, customers are often offered credits that can expire or pressure them to keep using the same service after a negative experience. Combined with the difficulty of speaking to a real person, many people end up paying the price for mistakes they didn’t make.
Democratic Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who authored the legislation, said the idea stemmed from personal experience. During a committee hearing last year, Bauer-Kahan recalled ordering 12 pizzas for her child’s party and only receiving one of them (2).
Advertisement
“I then wanted my money back. I didn’t want the credit. I’m not a frequent user of the app,” she said, according to ABC10. “It was $220 that they owed me… People are making it month to month right now. If you’re keeping my $220 and not letting me have that back, that could really make a huge difference for someone.”
Could this law go nationwide?
Currently, this law applies only in California. Only time will tell whether it will influence how other states or federal regulators approach the regulation of food delivery apps.
However, California has long acted as a testing ground for new legislation, especially regarding consumer protection and gig-economy regulation, with other states often following its lead (3). Support in various jurisdictions, along with calls from consumers nationwide to be treated the same, could also help spur federal action over time.
Additionally, the law may pressure delivery companies to make changes voluntarily to avoid a potential public-relations fallout and counter the perception that they only act in customers’ interests when forced to do so. Once companies have invested in the systems and infrastructure needed to comply with California’s requirements, rolling those changes out nationwide may become the simpler and more cost-effective option.
While Assembly Bill 578 only applies in one state, it highlights a growing expectation that convenience shouldn’t come at the cost of fairness — especially when budgets are tight.
Article sources
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines.
Digital Democracy Calmatters (1); ABC 10 (2); California Business Journal (3)
You May Also Like
- Turning 50 with $0 saved for retirement? Most people don’t realize they’re actually just entering their prime earning decade. Here are 6 ways to catch up fast
- This 20-year-old lotto winner refused $1M in cash and chose $1,000/week for life. Now she’s getting slammed for it. Which option would you pick?
- Warren Buffett used these 8 repeatable money rules to turn $9,800 into a $150B fortune. Start using them today to get rich (and stay rich)
- Here are 5 easy ways to own multiple properties like Bezos and Beyoncé. You can start with $10 (and no, you don’t have to manage a single thing)
Daniel Liberto is a financial journalist with over 10 years of experience covering markets, investing, and the economy. He writes for global publications and specializes in making complex financial topics clear and accessible to all readers.
