The explosion of app-based food delivery in Malta has reshaped the restaurant industry in just a few short years. Where getting a burger once meant calling ahead or heading out, apps like Wolt have made lunch at your desk or wings at 11pm just a tap away.

For some, this shift has created real opportunity. A number of businesses have launched and scaled thanks entirely to the reach and infrastructure provided by platforms. Delivery-only “ghost kitchens”, once unthinkable, are now a viable model. For entrepreneurs with limited capital or those in less visible locations, the platforms have offered access to customers they could never have reached otherwise.

But while the benefits are real, so too are the consequences. And increasingly, operators are questioning whether the model, in its current form, is sustainable for them and for the industry as a whole.

“Wolt already takes 31% of the full price of every order, and they only handle the delivery,” read a viral post by D Burgers, which recently left the platform. “We take care of everything else: buying ingredients, paying our kitchen staff, covering rent, bills, and maintaining our equipment. On top of that, Wolt also charges us penalties when deliveries are delayed, even if the delay is caused by our commitment to quality.”

Wolt told MeetInc that there is no fixed commission structure for restaurants in Malta, and that rates are set case by case depending on factors such as location, order volume, basket size, and type of business. The company said it regularly reviews partnerships and commercial terms, and that it aims to strike a balance between merchant viability, courier pay, customer fees, and its own sustainability.

From Growth to Strain

Other restaurant owners who spoke to MeetInc described similar frustrations, with the financial pressure steadily intensifying. “Delivery used to be a small part of the business,” one said. “Now it’s over 50%. But that 50% is taxed at up to 30% in commissions. We’re selling more, but we’re not making more.”

Commission rates were reported to range from 15% to 30%, with smaller, independent outlets generally paying more. Larger operators might get better terms, but they also face higher operating costs. Some fear those discounts could be revoked if they push back too hard. Several owners said they had received repeated emails notifying them of upcoming price increases, often without warning.

A recurring theme in conversations with operators was a sense of being boxed in. Platforms frequently push restaurants to offer discounts, which still incur full commission fees. “If you don’t take the offer, they’ll promote someone who does. And people chase offers. If your competitor agrees, you lose traffic.”

The pressure is amplified by Wolt’s growing dominance in the Maltese market. Known for its stronger customer service and food delivery focus, Wolt has steadily gained ground. Its subscription model, Wolt+, was another point of concern. While customers enjoy free delivery for a flat monthly fee, restaurants pay a higher commission on these orders. “It’s clever,” said one operator. “The customer feels like they’re saving money, but it’s the restaurant that absorbs the cost.”

Wolt confirmed that Wolt+ orders carry a slightly higher commission, but said this was balanced by increased visibility and customer loyalty – a claim disputed by operators who spoke to MeetInc. The company stressed that 90% of Wolt+ subscriber orders go to Wolt+ partners, who also benefit from marketing support and performance analytics.

Some operators also raised issues around fee calculations. Wolt reportedly calculates its commission on the total including VAT, meaning restaurants lose an additional slice of revenue on every order, even if they’re VAT registered and technically eligible for input recovery. “It adds up,” said one owner. “And at this point, every percentage matters.”

Asked about this, Wolt said the commission is calculated on the full amount including VAT, but argued that the outcome would be the same if the commission were applied to the net amount, as the percentage would simply be higher.

The Cost of Convenience

What’s striking is the underlying contradiction. Businesses are often seeing record-high order volumes, but profits, in many cases, have never been lower. “Before delivery, we were profitable,” one restaurateur explained. “Now, after three years of this, we’re break-even at best. How can we have this much business and not be making money?”

The broader implications are significant. Restaurants account for a sizable portion of Malta’s small and medium enterprise sector. If margins continue to erode, it’s not just individual venues at risk. It’s an entire ecosystem.

There is also a macroeconomic risk. Restaurants are high-circulation businesses. They pay wages, buy from local suppliers, rent commercial property, and contribute heavily to day-to-day urban activity. When profitability is stripped from this sector, those downstream linkages weaken too. Unlike profits flowing to offshore platforms or multinational shareholders, restaurant income tends to stay in the local economy. Undermining hundreds of these operators in the name of convenience risks slowing broader economic momentum, especially for the types of businesses and workers most dependent on local spending.

Part of the equation also lies with consumers. The platforms have redefined expectations. Ultra-convenience has become the norm, with many people now ordering food multiple times a day, for as little as €6, delivered across town. It is worth asking whether this behaviour is truly sustainable. “If someone’s ordering three meals a day and expects free delivery,” said one operator, “shouldn’t they at least expect to pay a bit more for the privilege?”

Rethinking the Model

So what’s the way forward?

There are two obvious starting points. The first is collective bargaining. Operators, especially those with scale, could benefit from organising under a common umbrella, whether through an existing chamber or an independent entity, to negotiate better terms. A fragmented market leaves everyone vulnerable. A united front could shift that dynamic.

The second is a collective pricing shift. Rather than absorbing the cost of commissions, restaurants could agree, informally or formally, to pass the delivery cost onto the customer. That would require a coordinated move, but it could reset expectations in a way that reflects the true cost of ultra-convenience.

None of these are easy steps, and the platforms themselves are not going anywhere. They have helped grow the market, introduced new business models, and transformed how people interact with food. Wolt said it is committed to long-term sustainability for its partners and that it continuously reviews feedback, adjusts terms, and develops tools aimed at helping merchants grow. But if the system is to remain viable, it needs to evolve. Otherwise, convenience may come at the cost of the very businesses it depends on.