New York City has lost its latest attempt to revive a law requiring major food delivery apps to provide restaurants with customers’ personal information.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on August 5, 2026, that the requirement violated the First Amendment. The decision favored DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats and upheld a lower court ruling that had already found the mandate unconstitutional.
The ruling does not prevent New York City from regulating delivery platforms or from creating another customer data policy. It means the city would need a narrower approach that gives consumers greater control over whether their information is shared.
The appeals court upheld the earlier ruling
A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit agreed with U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, who struck down the customer-data mandate in September 2024.
The appeals court concluded that requiring delivery platforms to hand over information about their customers amounted to compelled speech protected by the First Amendment. The judges also found that the city had imposed a broader requirement than necessary to accomplish its stated goals.
New York City had agreed not to enforce the requirement against DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats while the litigation continued.
The law required detailed customer information
New York City adopted the customer-data requirement in 2021 as part of a wider set of regulations governing third-party food delivery services.
When a restaurant requested information, the platform was required to provide the applicable customer data. That included the diner’s name, phone number, email address, delivery address, and order details.
The requirement involved significantly more information than simple sales totals or delivery statistics. Restaurants could potentially use those details to communicate directly with customers rather than relying entirely on the delivery platform.
The opt-out system caused problems
One of the appeals court’s biggest concerns involved how customers were expected to refuse data sharing.
The law generally presumed that information could be shared unless the customer opted out of a particular order. That meant someone who consistently wanted to keep personal information from a restaurant could have to repeat the decision each time they placed another order.
The court said New York City had not provided sufficient justification for requiring customers to repeatedly make that choice. It pointed to an opt-in system, in which consumers affirmatively agree to sharing, as a less burdensome alternative.
Restaurants wanted stronger customer relationships
The city adopted the requirement while restaurants were still recovering from severe disruptions created by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Officials argued that delivery apps had gained considerable control over restaurants’ relationships with diners. Giving establishments access to customer information could help them build direct relationships, market to previous customers, and reduce dependence on third-party platforms.
Court records showed that New York City had more than 23,600 restaurants in 2019, supporting approximately 317,800 jobs. The appeals court acknowledged the restaurant industry’s importance but found that economic concerns did not justify the particular data-sharing system the city selected.
Delivery companies raised privacy concerns
DoorDash filed its challenge in September 2021, with Uber Eats and Grubhub later bringing similar cases.
The companies argued that forcing them to transfer personal customer information posed privacy and data security risks. They also said restaurants could use information obtained through the platforms to market directly to customers and move future orders away from the apps.
The dispute, therefore, involved both privacy and competition. Restaurants argued that the platforms controlled information about customers purchasing their food, while the delivery companies viewed those users as customers of their own services.
NYC could try a narrower approach
The ruling does not prevent restaurants from receiving customer data when diners voluntarily agree to provide it.
The appeals court specifically identified an opt-in system as one possible alternative. Under that approach, customers would actively choose whether to share their information with the restaurant, rather than having to refuse to share it after each order.
New York City could rewrite the law governing that model or pursue other policies that help restaurants establish direct customer relationships without automatically forcing platforms to disclose personal information.
Any new version would need to address the constitutional problems identified by both the district and appeals courts.
TL;DR
- The 2nd Circuit ruled against NYC’s food delivery customer-data requirement on August 5, 2026.
- The unanimous decision upheld a September 2024 lower court ruling.
- The law required platforms to share names, phone numbers, emails, addresses, and order details with requesting restaurants.
- DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats argued that the mandate created privacy and security risks.
- The court found that the requirement amounted to unconstitutional compelled speech.
- Judges criticized the order-by-order opt-out system and identified opt-in sharing as a less restrictive alternative.
- NYC can still pursue a narrower customer-data policy that gives diners more control over sharing.
