FOLLOW US

Grubhub has agreed to pay $7.1 million to resolve a lawsuit accusing the delivery platform of using restaurants’ names and trademarks without permission, marking the end of a yearslong legal clash that began in 2020.

On Tuesday, a coalition of restaurants urged U.S. District Judge LaShonda Hunt in Illinois to grant preliminary approval to the settlement. The deal, they said, spares both sides the uncertainty and steep costs of continuing the courtroom fight.

“While plaintiffs believe both the facts and the law support their claims, the proposed settlement offers meaningful relief without the risks, delays, and expenses of prolonged litigation,” the motion stated.

Years in the Making

The restaurants — including Antonia’s of Hillsborough, North Carolina, and The Farmer’s Wife of Sebastopol, California — stressed that the agreement comes after several years of discovery and negotiation, with multiple failed attempts at settlement before finally breaking through.

The litigation first ignited in 2020, when eateries accused Grubhub of adding more than 150,000 restaurants to its platform without consent in an effort to outmaneuver rivals DoorDash and Uber Eats. Owners argued that unsuspecting customers, ordering through Grubhub, were misled into thinking they were dealing directly with the restaurants. When orders went wrong, it was the eateries — not Grubhub — who bore the brunt of customer frustration.

Legal twists and turns

In April 2024, Judge Hunt trimmed parts of the case, dismissing false association claims brought by restaurants that had not registered their marks. However, she allowed trademark infringement claims from MF Tasty LLC and Iowa City Coffee Co. to move forward. Other plaintiffs were permitted to pursue false association claims under the Lanham Act, even without registered marks.

Settlement talks regained momentum after Grubhub’s motion to dismiss was largely denied. By May 22, both sides had hammered out terms.

Grubhub Responds

A Grubhub spokesperson said the company was ready to move forward:

“While the practices alleged in this case have not been part of our business model for some time, we’re pleased to settle this case so we can focus on continuing to deliver value to the more than 415,000 merchants who choose to partner with us daily.”

Legal Teams in Play

Grubhub is represented by Isaac J. Colunga, Sophie E. Honeyman, and Rachel Smoot of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.
The restaurants and proposed class are represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan of Fegan Scott LLC, along with Rosemary M. Rivas, Wynne Tidwell, and Brian Johnson of Gibbs Law Group LLP.

Counsel for the restaurants has not yet issued a public comment on the settlement.