A missing burrito, the wrong bag, a vanished delivery, a partial order with full fees still attached — food delivery mistakes do happen.
But in California, customers now have a stronger argument than “please help me” when a delivery app gives them the runaround.
A new state law, Assembly Bill 578, adds refund and customer-service requirements for third-party food delivery platforms. The law applies broadly to food delivery platforms, not just DoorDash, but it matters for Californians who use apps such as DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub, and similar services.
The basic idea is simple: if your food delivery order was not delivered, the wrong order was delivered, or only part of the order showed up, the platform cannot simply shrug and offer a token credit while keeping the rest.
The Big Right: A Real Refund, Not Just App Credit
Under California Business and Professions Code Section 22599.2, a food delivery platform must provide a full refund if an order is not delivered or the wrong order is delivered.
That refund is supposed to include the full amount connected to the failed order — not just the menu price. The law says the refund includes taxes, commissions, fees, and gratuities.
That matters because anyone who has ordered delivery knows the meal price is only part of the total. A $17 entree can become a much larger charge once delivery fees, service fees, taxes, and tips are added. Under the law, if the order was not delivered or the wrong order was delivered, the platform cannot treat those extra charges as untouchable.
The law also says the platform must provide a way for customers to request that the refund go back to the original payment method.
Partial Orders Count Too
The law also addresses a common gray area: what happens when some food arrives, but not all of it?
For partially fulfilled orders, the platform must charge the customer only for the portion of the order the customer actually received. Taxes, fees, and gratuities directly tied to the missing items must be adjusted to reflect the reduced order.
So if the drinks, sides, dessert, or a full entree are missing, the issue is not just whether the app feels like tossing you a few dollars in credit. The law says the charge should reflect what actually made it to your door.
The law also requires the platform to provide a mechanism allowing the customer to adjust a gratuity that was included before delivery. That does not mean customers should punish drivers for restaurant or app errors. But it does mean the law recognizes that a tip selected before delivery may need to be revisited when the delivery is incomplete.
Importantly, the law also protects drivers in one key way: if the platform refunds the customer’s original gratuity, it cannot take or deduct that original gratuity amount from the delivery driver.
You Also Have A Right To Reach A Human
AB 578 does not just deal with refunds. It also takes aim at the endless bot loop.
The law requires food delivery platforms to include a clear and conspicuous customer service feature that lets a customer contact a natural person. The platform can still use automated systems first. But if the automated system cannot address the customer’s concern, the customer must be able to promptly connect with a real person.
That is a meaningful change for customers who have been stuck tapping through menus, receiving canned answers, or being told a decision is final without any meaningful review.
If a bot denies a refund for an order that was not delivered, was the wrong order, or was only partially delivered, California customers should specifically ask to be connected to a human customer service representative.
The Law Has Limits
This is not a free-food law.
The platform does not have to provide a refund if it determines that the customer was responsible for the nondelivery or finds evidence that the refund request may be fraudulent. The law also does not prohibit a platform from removing a customer if it has a reasonable suspicion that the customer has committed or is committing fraud.
That means customers should expect platforms to review refund claims, especially repeated claims. It also means documentation matters.
This law is strongest when the facts are clear: the order never arrived, the wrong bag arrived, or the order was missing items that were paid for.
It is less clear for complaints such as “the food was cold,” “I did not like it,” or “the restaurant made it poorly,” unless the issue fits into a missing, wrong, or partially fulfilled order. Customers may still be able to seek help through the app, but AB 578 is not a blanket guarantee for every disappointing meal.
