Complaints about food delivery apps more than doubled in first 5 months of 2025, Consumer Council says
The city's consumer watchdog said at a press conference on Monday that it received 971 complaints by food delivery platform users from January until the end of May this year. In contrast, it received 421 reports in the same period last year.
Jack Poon, the council's chairperson of the digital economy and information technology committee, said a total of 310 complaints, around one-third of the overall number this year, were related to delayed deliveries or undelivered food.
There was also a sharp rise in complaints about order cancellations, from 47 reports in the first five months of last year to 272 this year, he said.
Poon said he believed the overall jump in reports was due to more people using food delivery platforms, as companies were pushing promotions to attract customers.
'Complaints have risen maybe [because] of the [competitive] situation,' he said in Cantonese.
Poon also described three complaints received by the watchdog. In one case, a customer who ordered food from a delivery platform only received their order after a one-hour delay.
The platform at first declined to issue him a HK$120 coupon promised under its compensation policy, and only did so after the Consumer Council intervened.
In another case, a customer who selected the 'self-pickup' option arrived at the listed address only to find it did not exist. After the complaint was filed, the restaurant told the council that it only operated online and had no physical outlet.
Another complainant reported to the council that they placed a wrong order and asked for cancellation and a refund within one minute, but the request was refused by the platform, saying the food had already been prepared.
The Consumer Council urged food delivery platforms to enhance their transparency to allow customers to know when the food has been made, picked up by the courier and is en route to the delivery location.
Hong Kong's food delivery landscape is dominated by Singapore-based company Foodpanda and Keeta, a platform backed by Chinese retail giant Meituan.
Deliveroo announced its exit in March after nine years of operation in the city, saying it had entered a deal with Foodpanda to support its couriers and purchase some of its assets.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
China dependence poses existential risk to US universities
In July 2025, the Trump administration paused export controls on advanced AI chips to China in an effort to restart trade talks. The decision drew criticism from national security circles concerned about China's expanding tech dominance. Yet a quieter and more enduring pipeline of technological transfer remains largely overlooked: America's elite universities. Institutions such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Columbia are global beacons of research and innovation. Their mission statements reflect an ethos of internationalism and academic freedom. Harvard seeks to 'inspire every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world,' for example, and Columbia commits to 'advancing knowledge and learning at the highest level and to convey the products of its efforts to the world.' These ideals sound noble, and they often are, but they also create blind spots in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. Some of the most influential voices in academia have grown increasingly critical of America's global role. Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued that the US suffers from 'imperial overreach' and argues for a multipolar world where China plays a leading role. American University political scientist Amitav Acharya has, similarly, advocated a 'multiplex world order' that seeks to challenge America's global dominance. Even Princeton's John Ikenberry, often seen as a defender of liberal internationalism, has expressed concern that US unilateralism could unravel the very international order that America has helped build. These aren't abstract academic theories. They shape how universities approach international research and collaboration. In many elite institutions, the pursuit of knowledge is considered to be inherently global; an endeavor that should remain open, inclusive and free of political constraint. But as the boundary between civilian and military technologies grows fuzzier, particularly in fields like AI and quantum computing, academic openness can come at a cost. Such national security concerns are sometimes brushed aside by academia and are viewed as illegitimate, or even as reactionary or xenophobic. At the heart of this matter is money. Students from China and India compose more than half of the 1.1 million foreign students studying in the US. During the 2023–24 academic year, international students contributed more than $40 billion to the US economy. With annual tuition at elite schools often exceeding $60,000, these students fund research centers, laboratories, and faculty salaries. This revenue stream gives universities every reason to remain globally open, even if doing so occasionally creates tension between their priorities and national security. More significantly, many of these institutions maintain formal research partnerships with Chinese universities tied to state and military entities. Harvard, for instance, has collaborated with Tsinghua University, often referred to as China's MIT, on joint research on artificial intelligence, quantum physics, and biomedicine. While billed as academic exchanges, many projects in these fields relate directly to China's civil-military fusion strategy, whereby breakthroughs in science serve Chinese economic development as well as military modernization. These are not theoretical risks. They are playing out in real time. According to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, about one-third of Chinese nationals who earn PhDs in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields in the US return home within five years. Many go on to work in high-priority sectors supporting China's strategic goals. Kai-Fu Lee, a Carnegie Mellon Ph.D., led Google China before founding Sinovation Ventures, an AI-focused firm closely aligned with Beijing's national objectives. Jie Tang, a Cornell PhD, now leads major AI research initiatives at Tsinghua. During my own fieldwork in China's aviation sector, I mentored two promising students, Kankan Xie and Jikuo Lu, through elite US graduate programs. One is now a professor at Peking University; the other works on AI at Meta but plans to return to China. Both were grateful for the opportunities they found in the United States but made clear that their long-term goals were to support China's national development. Faculty are not blind to this. Martin Widzer, who teaches at the University of Colorado Denver and at the International College Beijing, told me that many of his Chinese students were candid in their nationalist convictions. Several now attend elite US institutions, and many plan to return home, equipped with a world-class education and a strong sense of purpose. Even more concerning is the growing trend of academic self-censorship. Scholars who rely on access to China or funding from Chinese sources often steer clear of politically sensitive topics such as Taiwan, Xinjiang, cyber espionage and technology theft. A prominent China scholar declined to let me publish his comments, fearing that it could jeopardize his visa and access to archives. The pressure is real, and it is only growing. As China scholar Ming Xia has noted, this kind of self-censorship undermines academic independence. When faculty or institutions depend on partnerships with authoritarian states, they risk shaping their research agendas to align more closely with the priorities of their funders, conducting experiments based on what is deemed acceptable rather than on the pursuit of truth. This is not a call to end international cooperation. US science has thrived on open exchange. But universities must balance openness with strategic awareness and recognize how generosity can aid strategic rivals. Policymakers must adopt a tougher stance. Research that involves dual-use technologies alongside institutions in authoritarian states known for serious human rights abuses should be banned outright. Partnerships linked to foreign military or intelligence agencies must be suspended or ended immediately. The US should expand green-card access to foreign STEM graduates who have earned their degrees in the United States, to retain talent for American innovation and security. Moreover, increased federal and state funding for public higher education is essential to reduce universities' reliance on foreign tuition, which currently threatens national security and America's technological edge. Protecting our strategic interests allows no compromise. If the US is serious about maintaining technological leadership in the 21st century, we must recognize that the same institutions that are producing Nobel laureates and Pulitzer winners might also be accelerating China's military and technological rise. Derek Levine is a professor at Monroe University. He is the author of 'The Dragon Takes Flight: China's Aviation Policy, Achievements, and International Implications' and 'China's Path to Dominance: Preparing for Confrontation with the United States.' This article first appeared on The National Review and is republished with the author's kind permission.
AllAfrica
2 hours ago
- AllAfrica
China's AIIB isn't too young to act and invest responsibly
In June 2025, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) marked its tenth anniversary at its annual meeting. Outgoing president Jin Liqun gave opening remarks, invoking Chinese President Xi's original vision of the Bank to become a true multilateral institution and celebrating its commitment to 'integrity, transparency, inclusiveness, and a results-oriented approach.' Unfortunately, the bank's track record reveals a different story. As representatives of Accountability Counsel, we attended the same meeting to advocate for the Bank to be more responsible when its financing contributes to negative impacts on local communities. In particular, we called for much-needed reforms to the AIIB's accountability mechanism, called the Project-Affected People's Mechanism, so that the AIIB can easily hear directly from local communities and facilitate action to either prevent or remediate harm. The AIIB's project financing has been linked to involuntary displacement, loss of livelihood and environmental destruction in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and elsewhere. And yet, the AIIB's official channel for hearing about and addressing such concerns–its accountability mechanism–is broken. That's most clearly evidenced by the fact that the AIIB's accountability mechanism has yet to accept a single case as eligible. In response to our concerns, we were asked to be patient. As a 10-year-old bank, AIIB was still young, still growing up and not ready to be compared to other multilateral institutions. It is understandable that the bank will make mistakes and that it will need to continually evolve. What is unacceptable is that while AIIB takes its time to mature, people and the planet bear the consequences. As a part of its operating model, the AIIB skirts responsibility by shifting its legal and institutional responsibility onto peer institutions. AIIB's 'lean, clean, and green' model moves money quickly and with little oversight. The bank has financed more than US$60 billion during its first 10 years, a significant portion of which was committed through co-financing agreements with other multilateral development banks. As part of these agreements, the AIIB delegates the implementation and monitoring of environmental and social standards to the co-financing institution. As of 2024, AIIB claims that for 113 projects, worth $23.3 billion – including large infrastructure projects like hydropower, metro rail, airport extensions – it does not bear the responsibility to prevent or remediate harm to local communities. This statistic is a part of a worrisome pattern of the AIIB evading its obligations to local communities and the environment. Even when AIIB is the sole financier and therefore solely responsible for overseeing the implementation of its own environmental and social standards, its own accountability mechanism has never once independently reviewed whether the bank is following its own rules, nor whether its rules are adequate to prevent, mitigate and remediate environmental and social harms. Here, too, AIIB delegates its responsibility down to clients and project implementers, requiring them to resolve issues so that the AIIB does not have to. Even worse, under the guise of localization, AIIB requires communities whose lives, livelihoods, and environments are at risk from AIIB's investments to try to first seek redress from the project implementers who've contributed to the harm in the first place. This is the case, despite AIIB staff's own admission, project-level redress channels don't always exist and vary widely in effectiveness. This year, AIIB has an opportunity to prove that it is ready to enter its next decade as a responsible investor. The policy of the AIIB's accountability mechanism is undergoing an official and public review, with a draft policy published just days after the AIIB's Annual Meeting concluded. Improvements to that policy would be proof that the AIIB is ready to be accessible and accountable to the communities it impacts. An independent expert has already published a list of policy improvements, a majority of which are yet to be adopted. We're calling for the AIIB to adopt three concrete improvements: The AIIB's accountability mechanism should allow communities to directly file complaints to it without first attempting other avenues. Because of current access barriers, communities are either unable to or choosing not to raise complaints, leaving the bank vulnerable and unaware of unsustainable aspects of its projects. The AIIB's accountability mechanism, its president and its board should have the power to call for an investigation into whether a project complies with AIIB's environmental and social standards. The AIIB is responsible for compliance with its own rules, so it should be able to initiate an independent investigation even if no complaint is filed. The AIIB's accountability mechanism policy should be reviewed every five years to ensure that it is maturing alongside the bank. This is standard practice to ensure that AIIB's policies and practices don't become outdated. If the bank adopts these changes, we will applaud the bank's evolution towards responsible investing. If the bank does not adopt these changes, we will have proof that the bank cares more about itself than its mission. The AIIB does not have to be the same as other multilateral development banks; indeed, its promise lies in new approaches it can bring to improve upon past development practices. Regardless of its approach, however, the AIIB does have to be responsible for its impacts–both positive and negative–on people and the planet. As of its 10th anniversary, the AIIB has not exercised that responsibility. Instead, AIIB has acted like a ten-year-old child, wanting praise without responsibility. Radhika Goyal and Margaux Day are with Accountability Council, a San Francisco-based independent watchdog organization that advocates for people who have been harmed by internationally-financed projects such as dams, mines and oil pipelines.
South China Morning Post
7 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
IPO allotment rule changes make market healthier as a whole
The initial public offering (IPO) game has never much favoured small retail investors. With red-hot IPOs, they usually only receive a small allotment, if at all. With less-popular IPOs, woe to those who manage to get all their subscribed lots as that pretty much signals a price fall at debut. New rules now in place mean allotment chances for retail investors will get even smaller, especially with popular IPOs. Market insiders and experts, however, argue that this is not necessarily a bad development. Bigger chunks for institutional investors will mean more stable prices, less volatility and higher liquidity for new stocks. From August 4, IPO candidates have had to allocate at least 40 per cent of the shares to institutional investors, including family offices. That is up from no guaranteed allocation previously. The rules reduce the IPO shares that retail investors can get from the so-called clawback mechanism to 35 per cent, down from 50 per cent previously in the event of a heavily oversubscribed offer. The IPO company may also not offer a clawback, in which case no more than 10 per cent is required to be allotted to retail investors. The new formula translates to a 50 per cent cap on IPOs for cornerstone investors, who face a six-month lock-up period. Institutional investors will enjoy more certainty in getting shares at a time when the IPO market in Hong Kong is hot again, having catapulted the city back to the global No 1 ranking. IPOs of 42 firms raised US$13.5 billion in the first half of this year. The full year could reach HK$250 billion (US$32 billion), according to KPMG. Many retail investors offload their hot shares at debut to make a quick buck. Institutional investors tend to hold shares longer and help with price discovery, as well as stabilising prices, but it also means fewer retail investors can partake in a debut rally.
