Healthy or misleading? A study of food outlets categorised as “healthy” on an Australian delivery platform

Objective: Online food delivery platforms increasingly shape food environments and dietary choices, yet it remains unclear whether platform-defined “healthy” outlet categories align with evidence-informed assessments. This study assessed the healthiness of food outlets labelled as “healthy” on a leading online food delivery platform in Victoria, Australia, using food environment classification tools. Design: Cross-sectional study using web-scraped outlet-level data. Outlets labelled “healthy” were assigned to one of 36 predefined outlet types and classified using the DIGIASSESS index, an expert-informed food environment scoring tool. A supplementary menu-based sensitivity analysis was conducted in a stratified random 10% subsample of outlets. Setting: A leading online food delivery platform in Victoria, Australia. Participants: We identified 12,938 unique food outlets, of which 1,408 (9.2%) were labelled “healthy” by the platform and included in the primary analysis. A stratified random subsample of 166 outlets underwent menu-level review. Results: “Healthy”-labelled outlets were most commonly Independent–Takeaway (11.8%), Independent–Cereal-Based Café Meals (9.7%), and Service Station Convenience Stores (7.4%). Using DIGIASSESS, most “healthy”-labelled outlets were reclassified as “less healthy” (n = 1,123; 79.7%) or “unhealthy” (n = 180; 12.8%), with 106 (7.5%) classified as “healthy.” The supplementary menu-based analysis showed similar classifications to DIGIASSESS (>98% agreement). Conclusions: On this leading Australian online food delivery platform, the “healthy” outlet category did not align with expert-informed assessments of outlet-type healthiness. Such misalignment risks misleading consumers and highlights the need for transparent, standardised criteria governing health-related outlet categories in digital food environments.