Quick Read
- ACCC is conducting a preliminary assessment into Uber Eats’ exclusive deals.
- Mitre 10 claims a Bunnings contract blocked its expansion on the delivery platform.
- Uber Eats has secured exclusive partnerships with major brands including Coles and Hungry Jack’s.
- Regulators are investigating whether these deals substantially lessen market competition.
Regulatory Oversight Intensifies
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has officially moved into a preliminary assessment phase regarding the business practices of Uber Eats. This regulatory scrutiny follows a formal complaint by hardware retailer Mitre 10, which alleges that Uber Eats’ strategy of securing exclusive, multi-year delivery partnerships with major national chains—most notably Bunnings—effectively bars smaller competitors from accessing the platform. The tension reached a breaking point in February when Uber Eats informed Mitre 10 that a previously successful 19-store trial could not be expanded due to the platform’s exclusive commitment to Bunnings.
The Mechanics of Market Concentration
At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether ‘exclusive dealing’ constitutes a standard commercial practice or a deliberate mechanism to insulate large players from competition. Mitre 10, which operates a network of 384 stores, argues that the current trajectory of the delivery sector favors ‘scale and dominance.’ By locking in major retailers such as Coles, Hungry Jack’s, Guzman y Gomez, and Schnitz, Uber Eats has effectively created a walled garden. This concentration is significant given that the Australian delivery market has shrunk following the exits of Deliveroo and the closure of Menulog’s operations in late 2024.
The ACCC’s investigation is currently focused on market effects. Under Australian competition law, exclusive contracts are not inherently illegal; they only violate the Competition and Consumer Act if they are found to ‘substantially lessen competition’ in the relevant market. The watchdog is now gathering data to determine if these arrangements create an insurmountable barrier to entry for retailers who rely on third-party delivery platforms for their digital footprint.
Operational Stakes for Retailers
For smaller retail chains, the inability to access high-traffic platforms like Uber Eats represents a significant operational handicap. As physical retail integrates more deeply with on-demand delivery, the ability to appear on the same apps as industry giants is no longer a luxury but a necessity for survival. Mitre 10’s experience suggests that when a platform prioritizes exclusive contracts with market leaders, it can freeze the expansion plans of rivals before they achieve national scale. While Bunnings has publicly denied that its agreements prevent other retailers from utilizing alternative platforms, the ACCC’s involvement highlights the broader concern that the delivery sector is becoming a duopoly, with Uber Eats and DoorDash holding the keys to the digital marketplace.
The ACCC’s probe marks a critical juncture for Australia’s digital economy. As the lines between brick-and-mortar retail and on-demand delivery blur, the role of platforms as ‘essential facilities’ becomes increasingly apparent. Should the regulator find that Uber Eats’ exclusive partnerships stifle innovation or exclude market participants, it could set a major precedent for how digital platforms are governed, potentially forcing a move toward more open, non-exclusive access models that ensure a level playing field for both national giants and smaller retail networks.