The UAE’s online food delivery sector has grown at an exceptional pace—yet largely in the absence of sector-specific regulatory oversight. That era has now ended. Two landmark instruments issued in early 2026 collectively establish a comprehensive compliance framework governing the conduct of digital food delivery platforms, their commercial relationships with food establishments, and their obligations towards consumers.

The first is the Guidelines for Online Food Delivery Platforms in the Emirate of Dubai (the “Guidelines”), issued by the Dubai Corporation for Consumer Protection and Fair Trade (“DCCPFT”) pursuant to its mandate under Dubai Law No. (5) of 2023—specifically Articles 5, 6, 8, and 9—and designed to be read in conjunction with Federal Decree-Law No. (36) of 2023 Regulating Competition and Federal Decree-Law No. (45) of 2021 Concerning the Protection of Personal Data. The second is Ministerial Resolution No. (32) of 2026, issued by the Minister of Economy and Tourism on 11 February 2026, which addresses exclusive dealing agreements between digital platforms and restaurants at the federal level—applicable across the entire UAE. These instruments now operate alongside Cabinet Resolution No. (59) of 2026, which establishes the Executive Regulations of the Competition Law and provides detailed procedural and substantive criteria governing enforcement—including the determination of dominant positions, the prohibition of excessively low prices, exemption notification procedures, complaint mechanisms, and investigation protocols.

For market participants, these instruments signal that platform conduct will now be measured against enforceable standards of fairness, transparency, and competitive neutrality—not merely aspirational principles.

What Do These Instruments Regulate?

The Guidelines apply to all online food delivery platforms providing services—whether directly or through third-party providers—to food establishments and other business users operating within Dubai. Their objective is to establish a reference framework promoting compliance with principles of fairness, transparency, and responsible conduct in an industry characterised by significant information asymmetry and concentrated market power.

The Ministerial Resolution is more surgical in scope: it targets a specific market dysfunction—exclusive dealing arrangements between platforms and restaurants—that regulators have identified as distorting competition in the food delivery market. In doing so, it operates pursuant to Article 11 of the Competition Law, which empowers the Minister to grant conditional exemptions from the general prohibition on restrictive agreements where the public economic interest so requires. The procedural framework for such exemptions is now detailed in the Executive Regulations, which require, inter alia, the submission of a comprehensive economic report demonstrating that the agreement or practice is necessary to promote economic development, improve competitiveness, develop production or distribution systems, or achieve specific consumer benefits—and that it substantially enhances overall economic efficiencies within the relevant market.

Key Regulatory Requirements: Transparency and Contractual Fairness

Enforcement attention under the Guidelines centres on the structural imbalance inherent in platform-restaurant relationships. Platforms are required to provide business users with clear, plain-language, uniformly applicable terms and conditions—accessible at all stages of the commercial relationship, including the pre-contractual phase. Any amendment to these terms requires a minimum of thirty days’ advance notice, coupled with an express right of termination for business users who do not consent to the changes; equally, any termination initiated by the platform must be preceded by thirty days’ written notice stating the grounds for termination.

Contracts between platforms and listed establishments must address, inter alia, the impact of the relationship on the establishment’s ownership and control of its brand, content, data, and intellectual property; the criteria governing how listings are displayed to consumers—including the weighting of each ranking factor and disclosure of paid promotional placements; and the mechanisms by which establishments may access customer data in a usable and transferable form upon contract termination.

The fee transparency obligations are equally granular. Platforms must disclose commission rate structures—including tiered rates, discounts, and variations—to all listed establishments and provide itemised monthly financial statements detailing gross revenue, commissions deducted, additional fees, final payouts, pending refunds, chargebacks, and settlement timelines. Marketing fees must be optional—they cannot be applied retroactively or through bundled charges without prior documented consent—and platforms are expressly prohibited from charging higher commissions arbitrarily on the basis of establishment size, location, or exclusivity status.

On the consumer-facing dimension, platforms must present an itemised breakdown of all charges before checkout and are prohibited from imposing hidden post-payment fees. Gratuities must be transferred in full—one hundred percent—to delivery personnel without deduction, withholding, or reallocation.

Exclusivity and Restrictive Agreements: The Core Competitive Concern

The most consequential provisions in both instruments address exclusivity—the practice through which dominant platforms secure the sole listing rights of food establishments, thereby foreclosing competitors and limiting consumer choice.

The Guidelines establish a general prohibition: food establishments have an unqualified right to list, operate, and promote their services on multiple platforms without facing penalties, restrictions, or commercial disadvantages of any kind—whether through direct contractual clauses or indirect deterrents such as increased fees, reduced algorithmic visibility, delayed payments, or discriminatory treatment. Platforms must not penalise multi-homing, and any conduct designed to suppress competition or resulting in its suppression—including manipulating consumer choices through biased rankings favouring exclusive partners—is expressly prohibited as constituting, in its subject, purpose, or impact, a distortion of competition.

The Guidelines do permit limited exclusivity arrangements, but only where a series of cumulative conditions are met: the arrangement must be genuinely voluntary, free from any form of coercion; the food establishment must receive demonstrable and fair compensation—such as genuinely reduced commission rates reflecting actual cost savings or enhanced marketing support; and the establishment must retain the right to terminate on reasonable terms, with a cooling-off period of six months for arrangements of twelve months or longer in total duration.

The Ministerial Resolution introduces a crucial federal overlay. Pursuant to Article 11 of Federal Decree-Law No. (36) of 2023, it grants a strictly conditional exemption to exclusive dealing agreements from the prohibitions under Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the Competition Law. The conditions are exacting: agreements must be entered into freely and without coercion; the term of exclusivity may not exceed twelve months from the Resolution’s effective date; no more than ten percent of a platform’s total listed restaurants may be subject to exclusive agreements; exclusive arrangements must not obstruct partnerships with start-up or small and medium-sized platforms; any commission discounts linked to exclusivity must be demonstrably justified by genuine cost savings or added value, subject to verification and audit; and post-exclusivity non-compete clauses are expressly prohibited.

The exemption is valid for twelve months and is non-renewable absent a further ministerial resolution. Non-compliance triggers administrative penalties under Article 23 of the Competition Law or, where appropriate, referral to the competent court for the imposition of criminal sanctions under Article 24. The penalties for violations of Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Competition Law include fines of not less than AED 100,000 and up to ten percent of the violating undertaking’s annual total sales in the UAE for the preceding fiscal year.

Platform Fairness, Data Protection, and Self-Preferencing

Beyond exclusivity, the Guidelines address a constellation of platform conduct concerns that will be familiar to practitioners who have followed the evolution of digital markets regulation internationally.

Platforms must obtain free, specific, informed, and unambiguous opt-in consent before collecting, using, processing, or sharing consumer personal data for commercial purposes—with consent revocable at any time without adverse consequence—and are prohibited from selling, renting, or transferring personal data to third parties without explicit and informed consent. These requirements align with Federal Decree-Law No. (45) of 2021 Concerning the Protection of Personal Data, which mandates that consent be clear, simple, unambiguous, and easily accessible, and that the data subject retain the right to withdraw consent at any time. Platforms must not give preferential treatment to their own brands, affiliated cloud kitchens, or related entities in ranking, listing, or recommendation algorithms—a prohibition on self-preferencing that mirrors emerging international standards. The use of non-public business user data—including order details, pricing, customer behaviour, and sales trends—to develop, market, or improve a platform’s own competing products or services is expressly prohibited.

Interoperability requirements further constrain platform conduct: open access to application programming interfaces must be provided on fair, non-discriminatory terms; platforms may not impose unfair technical barriers, force proprietary services, or charge integration fees to compliant food establishments.

Enforcement Architecture

The enforcement framework contemplates multiple layers of accountability. Platforms must maintain transparent, time-bound dispute resolution processes—including independent mediation through approved bodies—with unresolved disputes subject to referral to the DCCPFT. Consumer complaints concerning misleading or hidden charges must be acknowledged within three working days and resolved within seven. The DCCPFT retains authority to request periodic reports, system logs, and complaint data to verify ongoing compliance.

At the federal level, the Ministerial Resolution invokes the full enforcement apparatus of the Competition Law: administrative penalties under Article 23 and criminal referral under Article 24 where warranted. The Executive Regulations further empower the Ministry or the relevant authority to undertake investigation procedures on its own initiative—without the need for a formal complaint—where it obtains evidence indicating reasonable grounds and sufficient data regarding practices that may harm, restrict, or prevent free and fair competition. The Executive Regulations also authorise periodic market monitoring and empower authorities to request data from undertakings as part of ongoing oversight. The combined effect is a dual-track enforcement architecture—sector-specific oversight at the emirate level operating alongside federal competition enforcement—that creates meaningful compliance risk for platforms that fail to adapt.

Implications for Market Participants

For platform operators, these instruments demand a fundamental reassessment of existing commercial models. Exclusivity arrangements must be restructured to comply with both the twelve-month cap and the ten percent threshold; commission structures require full transparency and documented justification; data practices must be brought into alignment with both the Guidelines and Federal Decree-Law No. (45) of 2021 Concerning the Protection of Personal Data; and algorithmic ranking systems must be auditable and free from undisclosed commercial influence. Under the Executive Regulations, the criteria for establishing a dominant position now expressly encompass the existence of exclusive or long-term relationships with customers or suppliers that may reinforce an undertaking’s market power, as well as technological superiority, business model advantages, and the ability to act independently of market pressures—all factors directly applicable to major food delivery platforms.

For food establishments, the new framework provides an enforceable legal basis for challenging unfair platform practices—whether relating to exclusivity coercion, opaque fee structures, data access restrictions, or discriminatory algorithmic treatment. The practical question is no longer whether such protections exist, but how effectively establishments will invoke them.

For legal practitioners, the convergence of competition law, consumer protection, data privacy, and sector-specific platform regulation in a single market creates a compliance environment of considerable complexity. Advisory mandates in this sector will increasingly require integrated analysis spanning multiple regulatory frameworks—a departure from the siloed approach that has historically characterised platform compliance in the UAE.

Looking Ahead

The regulatory trajectory is unmistakable. The UAE is moving towards a more sophisticated, enforcement-capable platform governance environment—one in which actual market conduct, rather than formal compliance documentation, will determine regulatory outcomes. The legal framework now provides clearer rules governing platform transparency, exclusivity, data use, and competitive neutrality, with substantive thresholds and procedural requirements that align with emerging international best practice in digital markets regulation.

Market participants should expect these standards to be actively enforced. The DCCPFT’s Guidelines and the Ministerial Resolution are not aspirational documents—they are the foundation of a regulatory regime designed to ensure that the UAE’s food delivery market operates on principles of genuine competition, transparency, and fairness.

These developments merit close attention from all stakeholders in the digital economy.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Authors: Asad Ahmad, Partner and Head of Antitrust & Competition and Khaled Abu Orabi, Senior Associate