Aussies stunned by insane $40 price at Mexican restaurant: ‘That’s crazy’
A Sydney delivery-only Mexican restaurant, Mr Max Burrito, has come under fire online after a customer spotted its taco prices on Uber Eats, sparking widespread mockery on social media. The controversy highlights growing frustration among Australians over food delivery costs, with critics branding the prices a "rip-off" compared with well-known competitors offering similar dishes for considerably less.
Three Carne Asada Tacos cost $40, while fish tacos are $38, Al Pastor tacos $35 and veggie tacos $32; burritos range from $35 to $42 and enchiladas cost $55 to $60. By comparison, Guzman y Gomez charges $21.60 for three tacos and $18.10 for a burrito, while Papi's Birria Tacos and Ricos Tacos sell similar items for $28. Reddit users reacted with disbelief, questioning how the restaurant could stay in business, and Daily Mail was unable to reach Mr Max Burrito for comment.
- Sydney's Mr Max Burrito charges $40 for three tacos via delivery
- Social media users called the pricing "ridiculous" and a "rip-off"
- Rivals like Guzman y Gomez charge roughly half the price
New here? Start with this
Sydney restaurant Mr Max Burrito operates as a delivery-only business, listing its menu exclusively on platforms like Uber Eats rather than running a physical dine-in venue. This model has become increasingly common in Australia's food industry, though it has also drawn scrutiny over pricing, since delivery-only kitchens often carry different cost structures and fees compared with traditional restaurants.
The wider context is a growing debate in Australia about the cost of ordering food through delivery apps, with many customers feeling that prices have climbed well beyond what similar meals cost in person or from established chains. Guzman y Gomez, a large and well-known Mexican-style fast food chain, is often used as a benchmark for what customers expect to pay for tacos and burritos.
This story matters because it taps into broader frustration over the rising cost of living and food delivery in Australia, and raises questions about pricing transparency for small, app-only food businesses that lack the brand recognition of major chains.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to the restaurant's pricing point out that delivery-only kitchens face steep costs not visible to customers, including commission fees of 15-30% to platforms like Uber Eats, higher packaging expenses, small-batch sourcing for quality ingredients, and none of the volume efficiencies larger chains like Guzman y Gomez achieve through scale and dine-in turnover. A small independent operator setting its own prices in a free market is entitled to charge what it believes reflects its costs and positioning, and customers remain free to simply choose a cheaper alternative rather than order. Comparing a boutique delivery kitchen directly to a national fast-casual chain may also be an unfair comparison of two fundamentally different business models.
The case against
Critics argue that regardless of the cost pressures a small delivery business faces, charging nearly double what established competitors charge for comparable dishes represents poor value that ordinary consumers are right to call out, especially amid a broader cost-of-living squeeze. They contend that transparency and fair pricing matter in a market where customers cannot taste or inspect food before ordering, and that public mockery on social media is a legitimate form of consumer feedback that helps other diners make informed choices. From this view, businesses that price themselves far outside the norm should expect scrutiny rather than sympathy, particularly when they are not available for comment to explain the disparity.