News

Wolt has abused its dominant position

On 26 August 2026 the Danish Competition Council has decided that Wolt Denmark between 2022 and 2024 violated the Danish Competition Act and TEUF article 102 by abusing its dominant position, partly by imposing a price parity clause on restaurants, and partly, in combination with this clause, by imposing unfair trading conditions on restaurants.

Chair of the Competition Council, Christian Schultz, says:

The vast majority of the restaurants that sell meals via Wolt are small businesses. Since the Competition Council stepped in, they have gained greater room to maneuver and a better opportunity to attract customers to their own sales channels, where no commission must be paid to Wolt. In addition, existing and potential future competitors to Wolt have found it easier to compete, especially on price.

Wolt has abused its dominant position in three ways: one exclusionary abuse and two exploitative abuses. 

Regarding the exclusionary abuse, Christian Schultz says:

Wolt included a standard clause in its agreements with restaurants which meant that restaurants could not undercut the prices on Wolt on their own sales channels. At the same time, the clause gave restaurants a strong incentive not to set lower prices on other platforms. We have assessed that the standard clause was capable of keeping new competitors to Wolt at bay and making it difficult for existing ones to grow.

Regarding the two exploitative abuses, Christian Schultz says:

Restaurants prefer to sell directly to customers to avoid paying commission to Wolt or another platform. Their agreement with Wolt made it difficult to attract customers to their own sales channels. Wolt could offer discounts on a restaurant’s meals without informing the restaurant, while the restaurant could not offer discounts on its own sales channels. This was because Wolt’s standard terms did not allow the restaurant to undercut the price on Wolt.
If a Wolt customer was dissatisfied with their meal, Wolt could, without consulting the restaurant, pay compensation of up to DKK 400 at the restaurant’s expense, regardless of whether the complaint was due to the quality of the meal or Wolt’s delivery of it. The restaurant therefore had no influence over any complaints against it but bore the full financial risk. As a result of Wolt’s standard terms, the restaurant could not pass this risk on to its sales via Wolt.

Wolt has stated that their price parity clause has not been used in Denmark since 4 December 2025.

The Danish Competition Council has ordered Wolt to cease the illegal conduct and to refrain from the same or similar conduct in the future. In addition, Wolt must inform all restaurants on Wolt’s platform in Denmark of the Danish Competition Council’s decision. The Danish Competition Council has decided to bring the case before the national courts for Wolt to be fined for the infringement.

Investigations by the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority have shown that Wolt has attained a dominant position in the market for meal ordering platforms with delivery in Denmark. Wolt’s market share increased from around [50-60] percent to approximately [70-80] percent in the investigated period from 2022 to 2024.

The majority of restaurants on meal delivery platforms are small businesses that are economically dependent on platforms like Wolt. This is because many consumers use meal delivery platforms when ordering takeaway. The Authority’s investigations show that 77 percent of Danish consumers had purchased takeaway within the past two months.

For further information

Contact Head of Communications at the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority, Hanne Arentoft, at +45 41 71 50 98.

Wolt’s abuse of a dominant position

Wolt’s conduct constituted one exclusionary abuse and two exploitative abuses and occurred through the following trading conditions:

  • A narrow price parity clause in Wolt’s standard terms. This meant that restaurants were not allowed to set lower prices on their own sales channels than the prices they set on Wolt’s platform.
    The clause was a standard term that gave restaurants a strong incentive to set the same prices on other platforms as on Wolt. This is because restaurants did not want other platforms to be cheaper than their own sales channels, as the price on their own channels could not be lowered due to Wolt’s price parity clause.
    The clause was capable of significantly restricting competition in the market for meal ordering platforms with delivery. Competing platforms were, among other things, constrained in competing with Wolt by setting a lower commission, because the clause could prevent a lower commission resulting in lower consumer prices on the meal delivery platform.
  • A narrow price parity clause in combination with a trading condition that Wolt can offer promotional discounts to consumers without informing the restaurants.
  • A narrow price parity clause in combination with a trading condition that Wolt can grant consumers compensation on behalf of the restaurants of up to DKK 400 per order without prior notice to or consent from the restaurants.

The market for meal ordering platforms with delivery in Denmark

  • The market is characterized by strong network effects. This means that more restaurants on a platform attract more consumers, and vice versa.
  • The strong network effects make it difficult for other players to compete once one platform has become the largest.
    Wolt entered the Danish market in 2017.
  • Wolt has by far the largest market share — approximately 80 percent of the market. The market share increased during the period of the abuse from 2022–2024.
  • Competitor Just Eat lost market share between 2022–2024 and exited the market in April 2026.
  • Two other competitors, Foodora and Dream Delivery, likewise exited the market during the period of abuse from 2022-2024.
  • Uber Eats entered the market in April 2026.

The Danish Competition Act’s prohibition of abuse of a dominant position

  • A company may have a dominant position in the market, and it may compete intensively with its competitors.
  • A dominant company has a special obligation not to harm effective competition.
  • The Danish Competition Act’s prohibition of abuse of a dominant position is infringed when a company has a dominant position in the market and abuses that position in a way that harms competition.
  • An abuse typically involves the dominant company seeking:
    • to harm competitors or keep them out of the market, e.g., by offering competitors’ customers particularly large discounts (“exclusionary abuse”).
    • to exploit the lack of competitive pressure by, for example, imposing unfair trading conditions on business partners (“exploitative abuse”).
  • The Danish Competition Council may issue orders requiring companies to cease the illegal conduct.
  • Companies and individuals may be fined for violating the Danish Competition Act’s prohibition of abuse of a dominant position.