Aldi Faces Class-Action Suit Over Delivery Fees Charged to SNAP Recipients

Why Aldi Is Being Sued Over SNAP Delivery Fees

A class-action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court accuses Aldi of charging delivery, expedited fulfillment and convenience fees to customers who pay for online grocery orders with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The two California law firms behind the suit — James Hawkins APLC and The Markham Law Firm — argue that these added charges illegally burden low-income shoppers who rely on federal food assistance, according to a Law360 report. Neither the firms nor Aldi responded to requests for comment.

The mechanics of the dispute center on how SNAP payments work online. SNAP benefits are loaded onto Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, and by law they can only cover eligible food items. Aldi's own website states that customers cannot use EBT cards to pay for non-SNAP-eligible products, tips, delivery fees, ordering fees or convenience fees; those must be paid with a credit card, debit card or another method. The plaintiffs allege that layering these fees onto SNAP orders effectively penalizes the shoppers the program is designed to help.

The lawsuit arrives as grocery delivery and SNAP acceptance converge. Aldi began accepting SNAP payments for Instacart delivery orders in November 2020, when pandemic-driven demand for home delivery surged, though it has long accepted SNAP in its physical stores. More recently, DoorDash expanded SNAP payment availability for online ordering at all SNAP-eligible Dollar Tree locations in June, following a similar rollout with Dollar General last year. That widening adoption makes the legal questions raised in this case relevant well beyond Aldi.

The Legal Fault Line Under Grocery's EBT Delivery Boom

Why the Fee Structure Is Legally Exposed

The core tension is between two legitimate positions. SNAP rules prohibit using federal benefits for delivery, tips or convenience fees, so retailers must separate eligible food costs from service charges. Aldi says it does exactly that, requiring a second payment method for fees. The plaintiffs, however, argue that the practical result is a surcharge on SNAP users — a group with limited payment flexibility — and that this improperly impacts low-income shoppers. The case will likely turn on whether the fee design effectively discriminates against SNAP recipients or merely reflects standard e-commerce cost recovery.

The Instacart Precedent Hangs Over the Case

Last year Instacart agreed to pay $60 million in refunds to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it promoted free delivery but charged a service fee that could add as much as 15% to an order. Instacart denied wrongdoing. That settlement did not establish liability, but it signaled regulatory and legal scrutiny of how delivery platforms disclose and structure fees. Aldi's alleged use of Instacart and Aldi Express as delivery channels means the case could pull in platform-level practices as well as the retailer's own fee policies.

A Sector-Wide Exposure as EBT Delivery Expands

The lawsuit lands as more retailers and delivery firms accept SNAP for online orders. DoorDash's June expansion to all SNAP-eligible Dollar Tree locations, following its Dollar General partnership, shows how quickly EBT delivery is becoming mainstream. For context, any legal ruling that restricts how delivery fees can be applied to SNAP orders would ripple across grocers, gig-delivery platforms and their payment partners, forcing changes to checkout flows, fee disclosure and possibly pricing models. Retailers that have recently expanded SNAP delivery — or plan to — now face a clearer incentive to audit their fee architecture before similar suits arrive.

What Aldi Stands to Lose

Aldi has not commented, and the suit is at an early stage. But class-action status, if granted, could expose the grocer to refunds and damages across a broad California customer base, plus reputational risk with value-focused shoppers who are central to its brand. The company's discount positioning makes any perception of penalizing low-income customers particularly sensitive. The medium-term risk is less about a single payout and more about whether fee structures for SNAP delivery become a compliance standard that all grocers must meet.

What Retailers and Delivery Partners Should Do Next

The most important insight: this case tests whether charging standard delivery and convenience fees on SNAP orders is lawful, and the outcome will set the compliance bar for every grocer and delivery platform now expanding EBT online ordering.

• Audit your SNAP checkout flow now (0–6 months): Confirm that EBT cards are never charged for delivery, expedited, convenience or ordering fees, and that the second-payment-method step is clear and unavoidable before order confirmation. Aldi's own website language shows the policy exists — the dispute is about how it works in practice.
• Review fee disclosure with delivery partners (0–6 months): The Instacart FTC settlement over a service fee adding up to 15% to orders shows that platform-level fee presentation carries legal risk. Retailers using Instacart, DoorDash or proprietary apps should verify that all fees are itemized and disclosed before a SNAP customer pays.
• Watch the California Superior Court docket for class certification (6–24 months): If the court grants class-action status, the case becomes a template for similar suits in other states and raises the cost of non-compliance across the sector.
• Prepare for a sector standard (6–24 months): As DoorDash expands SNAP payments to Dollar Tree and Dollar General locations, expect regulators and plaintiffs' firms to treat SNAP delivery fees as a uniform compliance issue rather than a company-specific one.

Metrics to watch: the court's ruling on class certification; any motion to dismiss and Aldi's response; whether other grocers or delivery platforms are named in follow-on suits; and any FTC or USDA guidance on SNAP delivery fee practices.