Because no one is being forced.. It is not an assumption to conclude that anyone who took the deal is better off.
Desperate is not a thing in economy.. the real question if fairness is our concern is “are all transactions voluntaries” and “is there competition”.. The answer is YES to both.

I agree that nobody is being forced to use the services, but this still doesn’t deter from the fact that in some instances, the delivery riders are being hugely underpaid—less than a third of the minimum wage in Australia. It may be the difference between them surviving, but that doesn’t mean that the delivery services should be able to get away with it. There’s a minimum wage in place for a reason—to ensure that workers get paid a fair amount.

The bottom line : These delivery companies made EVERYONE better off.. EVERYONE! By a little bit (restaurants), by much (drivers) and by a lot (consumers). They made no one worse off. .NO ONE :)

I don’t think it’s as black and white as this. Yes, they’ve made jobs available to low-skilled workers, but at the same time, they’re paying them a pittance. And yes, they’ve potentially increased the market reach of restaurants, but at the same time taking every single bit of profit that the restaurant makes on the transactions (in some instances, perhaps not all).