ACCC Probes Uber Eats Exclusive Contract Probe Over Bunnings Deal
The uber eats exclusive contract probe has moved into the ACCC’s preliminary assessment stage after Mitre 10 complained that Uber Eats’ exclusive deal with Bunnings kept it from fully using the platform. For retailers that depend on online delivery, the question now is whether exclusive arrangements can shut out rivals before a broader trial ever gets off the ground.
Mitre 10 wrote to the ACCC earlier this year after Uber Eats told it in February that it would no longer support an expanded trial because it had signed an exclusive deal with Bunnings. The hardware retailer said the arrangement left it unable to fully access the Uber Eats platform, a dispute that now sits inside the watchdog’s review of Uber Eats’ deals across the online delivery sector.
Mitre 10’s 19-store trial
19 stores formed the basis of Mitre 10’s October trial with Uber Eats, drawn from its 384-store network. That trial later ran into a hard stop when Uber Eats said the Bunnings agreement prevented an expansion. Mitre 10 described the issue in its letter using the phrase “scale and dominance,” signaling that its concern went beyond one partnership and into the leverage of large platforms and large chains.
384 stores also show why the dispute matters operationally for a retailer of Mitre 10’s size. A trial that begins in a small slice of the network can still be the test case for wider delivery access, but an exclusive deal with a direct rival can freeze that path before it becomes a national rollout. For smaller retailers, the practical issue is not theory; it is whether they can get onto the same apps as the biggest chains.
Bunnings, Hungry Jack’s and Coles
Uber Eats has struck exclusive deals with Hungry Jack’s, Guzman y Gomez and Bunnings, and last week it announced an exclusive multi-year partnership with Hungry Jack’s across more than 450 restaurants. In December, it also became Coles’ exclusive on-demand delivery partner through a nationwide multi-year partnership. Those deals show how quickly platform access can be concentrated when one provider is locked in across multiple national brands.
More than 450 restaurants in the Hungry Jack’s arrangement, plus the Coles partnership, put the Bunnings complaint into a wider pattern. Woolworths added DoorDash to its online delivery options in December alongside Uber Eats and Milkrun, while Menulog customers are now redirected to the Uber Eats app after Menulog’s exit. Deliveroo shut operations in Australia in 2022, and Menulog shut down in Australia in November last year, leaving Uber Eats and DoorDash as the main players in the delivery market.
ACCC’s preliminary view
The ACCC said it is conducting an assessment of the concerns and has yet to form a view. “The ACCC is conducting an assessment of these concerns and is yet to form a view. As the assessment is ongoing, the ACCC will not comment further at this time,” an ACCC spokesperson said. Bunnings denied that other retailers were stopped from using delivery platforms, setting up the central friction in the case: whether the deal is ordinary commercial locking-in or a arrangement that goes far enough to restrain competition.
Exclusive deals only breach competition law if the arrangement substantially lessens competition, so the regulator’s early-stage review is about market effect, not just the existence of a deal. If the ACCC decides the Mitre 10 complaint has enough weight, the online delivery sector could face closer scrutiny of the agreements that let one platform ring-fence a retailer while cutting off another. That is the pressure point for smaller chains trying to win app space without being pushed aside by bigger names.
