Online alcohol deliveries: age verification processes of online alcohol delivery companies in Auckland, New Zealand

The global online delivery sector has grown rapidly in recent years, driven by community lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing consumer desire for convenience, and technological advances.^1–5 The same is true in New Zealand, where much of New Zealand is now serviced by online delivery services,⁶ and where the online food delivery sector is expected to grow by 9.47% a year.⁷

Similarly, the online alcohol delivery space in New Zealand has grown rapidly following COVID-19 community lockdowns, with 18% of a social media sample reporting that they used online alcohol delivery companies for the first time during lockdowns.³ Over this time, many alcohol retailers were quick to expand their services to include remote sales and deliveries.⁸ Now, alcohol delivery companies are common, with delivery timeframes being anywhere from the same day to within several days of ordering. A number of companies also offer delivery within 2 hours of ordering (known as rapid delivery).^9,10 Many rapid alcohol delivery companies function through a third-party delivery company, which is a facilitator service that connects the remote seller to the purchaser through a platform such as an online application.

While widespread research on the harms from online alcohol deliveries is still lacking, there have been some documented harms. These include recent heavier drinking,^3,11,12 extension of drinking sessions that would otherwise have ended^3,13 and delivery to minors.^12,14 There are growing concerns for these harms in New Zealand,^8,10,15 as well as fears for a worsening of domestic violence associated with heavy drinking in the home, and the use of machine learning and algorithms to target people recovering from addiction.⁸ There are also particular concerns surrounding rapid alcohol delivery, including the increased access to alcohol and to a greater range of products than available locally,⁸ as well as increased exposure to alcohol advertising.⁴

Vulnerable groups may be at particular risk. Firstly, young people are among the most frequent users of online delivery companies^1,11,16,17 and had the highest rates of hazardous drinking in 2022–2023 in New Zealand.¹⁸ Secondly, low-income groups, Māori and Pacific peoples may be inequitably affected by online alcohol delivery harms through a greater exposure to online delivery companies offering predominantly unhealthy commodities in their local neighbourhoods.¹⁵ Māori were also significantly more likely than NZ Europeans and those of Other ethnicity to buy alcohol online for the first time during the August/September 2021 COVID-19 lockdown.¹⁹ However, a recent study focussing on alcohol delivery companies has found no relationship between online alcohol delivery companies and areas with higher populations of low-income groups and Māori.¹⁰

Despite potential risks and the rapidly growing space of online alcohol delivery, there is little regulation in New Zealand, and there have been no substantial reviews or amendments to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 since it was introduced in 2012. Currently, New Zealand law does not require age verification at purchase or upon delivery; rather, the requirements in section 59 (3) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 are that “remote sellers (those selling alcohol over the internet, or by phone or mail order) take reasonable steps to verify that both the buyer and the receiver of any alcohol sold online for home delivery are over the legal purchase age.”²⁰ Reasonable steps are further defined in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013 part 1 section 14 (2) as, “i) Ask the buyer to tick an on-screen box declaring that they are 18 years of age or over when they first enter the internet site; and ii) Ask the buyer to tick an on-screen box declaring that they are 18 years of age or over immediately before the sale of any alcohol is completed.” In essence, for remote sellers this requires providing two tick-boxes or date of birth boxes on the website, with no checks required at time of delivery.

In contrast, many countries overseas have regulated age verification checks at purchase and upon delivery. A 2021 study of 77 jurisdictions covering New Zealand, Australia, the United States of America, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom found that 71 of the 77 jurisdictions required age verification at time of delivery.²¹ New Zealand was among the few countries with no requirements. In 44 of the jurisdictions, a signature was required in addition to sighting identification, and three jurisdictions did not allow alcohol delivery through third-party delivery companies at all. Several jurisdictions also limited the type of alcohol that could be delivered (mainly restricted to beer and wine), the quantity of alcohol able to be delivered, required delivery drivers to be trained in recognising minors and intoxicated people, and regulated the timeframe deliveries can occur within. Only a few jurisdictions, including New Zealand, allowed alcohol delivery outside of the regulated national trading hours.

In New Zealand, there is only one piece of research with information available on age verification checks. This study explored the purchasing and consumption patterns of people during COVID-19 through a social media sample, and 58% of the sample reported no age verification checks on delivery of alcohol.³ In comparison, a study from Western Australia, where requirements for age verification currently exist, had 24% of the sample report no age verification checks.²²

Given the paucity of information available on age verification checks on online alcohol deliveries in New Zealand, this study aimed to document the age verification processes for a sample of online alcohol deliveries in Auckland, New Zealand, with a focus on rapid alcohol delivery. Secondary aims included documenting delivery speeds for online alcohol deliveries, and whether online alcohol delivery companies followed their existing policies for the delivery and age verification of restricted items (that is, for alcohol).

Method

Sample

All remote sellers offering online alcohol delivery within 1 day in Auckland, including all third-party delivery companies offering alcohol delivery in Auckland, were eligible for inclusion in this study. The companies were identified through searches on Google, Apple and Android application stores, prior research and through social media. Several popular online alcohol delivery companies were also included in the study as a comparison measure, as were the majority of supermarket companies offering alcohol delivery.

Observation checklist

A checklist was created that outlined aspects to note during the purchasing and delivery processes. Items assessed during the purchasing stage were: age confirmation prompt/s; speed of delivery offered; delivery driver partners (if specified); and the existence of a policy for restricted items. Aspects noted during the delivery stage were: whether the delivery was left at the door unattended; if the delivery driver requested age verification; the speed of delivery; whether the age verification procedures stated in the company’s restricted items policy were followed; and (where possible) the delivery driver’s company or the courier company.

Procedure

This Alcohol Healthwatch project had the data collected by a research assistant studying at The University of Auckland, with oversight by a health promotion advisor at Alcohol Healthwatch. The research assistant was aged over 18 but under 22. Orders were placed by the research assistant across 2 months in the latter half of 2023 and delivered to two home addresses and one office address in Auckland.  

Alcohol orders from 14 of the 16 online alcohol delivery companies were made three separate times, across separate days. Two of the 16 online alcohol delivery companies (Liquor Legends and Teddy) had two orders made, across separate times and days. Sufficient care was taken to ensure that the type of alcohol purchased varied across the orders. Orders were for a single alcohol product, or the minimum order requirement. Where the research assistant was able to indicate on the purchasing platform that “contactless delivery” (or orders to be left at the door) was preferred, this was indicated at time of sale. Where orders were placed from supermarkets, no other food item was included as part of the order, and the fastest delivery window was selected.

The research assistant monitored all orders, and first waited to see if the delivery was left at the door unattended. If it was evident that the delivery driver would not leave the delivery at the door unattended, the research assistant answered the door in the usual manner of a delivery and only offered age identification if prompted.

Ethical considerations

A number of steps were followed in attempts to adhere to ethical procedures and protect participant and researcher safety. Firstly, the research assistant was a student of The University of Auckland and at the time was involved with Alcohol Healthwatch as a placement student. The research assistant provided a clear conviction check from the Ministry of Justice/New Zealand Police prior to the commencement of project, with age identification sighted. The assistant also signed an ethical contract outlining expectations to behave ethically and with integrity. This document was provided by the University placement coordinator and arranged through the University placement paper as part of their standard placement paperwork. It also included the responsibility to protect, preserve and respect the information of clients and others, and to respect and consider a range of appropriate viewpoints. Effort was made to ensure informed and free consent from the research assistant. She was able to withdraw her contribution and involvement with the project at any time.

Both the research assistant and the lead supervisor understood and agreed on project requirements, including delivery of alcohol to the research assistant’s home address. There was an agreed process in place for managing the collection of alcohol and putting it aside once it reached her home, for herself and household members’ safety. This included the research assistant briefing her household members and storing the alcohol in a separate and dedicated cupboard. The research assistant’s home address was chosen in part for convenience for the research assistant, but also to eliminate any potential biases or changes in usual procedure that a delivery to “Alcohol Healthwatch” offices might trigger. The research assistant was aware that if there were any concerns about delivery drivers, she was not to engage or open the door, and to call the police.

Secondly, all funding and payment of alcohol was arranged by Alcohol Healthwatch, with all alcohol purchases monitored and checked against a purchasing list. The lead supervisor had oversight of when and how deliveries were made and was available at these times to the research assistant. Plans for orders and deliveries were made and discussed at the start of each week. Receipts and invoices for deliveries were provided and collected by the lead supervisor at the end of each week. Twice weekly in-person check-ins were conducted throughout the course of the project, during which the wellbeing of the research assistant was discussed. At the close of the project, the lead supervisor picked the alcohol up from the research assistant’s house in a vehicle (so there was no requirement to transport the alcohol in public), where it was disposed of at the Alcohol Healthwatch offices. Data around the alcohol deliveries are stored on secure Alcohol Healthwatch drives.

Results

Overview

Overall, 46 orders were placed with 45 delivered, leaving a total of 45 deliveries to be assessed across 16 different companies. These companies were: Countdown, Delivereasy, DoorDash, Fine O Wine, Laithwaites, New World, Bevee, Paddock to Pantry, Uber Eats, Teddy, Liquor Legends, Society Liquor, Fine Wine Delivery, Wine Central, Alcohol Delivery and Good Drop. Table 1 outlines the characteristics of the sample of companies.

View Table 1–2.

Age verification

Table 2 outlines the characteristics of the deliveries. Of the total orders delivered (n=45), almost half of the deliveries (49%, n=22) were left at the door unattended. A further 24% (n=11) that were delivered did not check age identification. In total, 73% (n=33) of all deliveries did not check age identification.

Of the 16 companies, 62.5% (n=10) did not check age identification on any of their delivery orders. These companies were: Countdown, Alcohol Delivery, Fine O Wine, Fine Wine Delivery, Good Drop, Laithwaites, Liquor Legends, Paddock to Pantry, Society Liquor and Wine Central. Only two of the 16 companies in this study verified age on all deliveries. One alcohol retailer, Teddy, had a specific condition on their licence that the delivery driver must sight photo identification, yet this was not adhered to for the two deliveries in this study.

Organisational policies and procedures

All (100%, n=16) companies had an available policy on restricted items, including a stipulation that age identification must be provided on delivery. However, from this sample only two companies (Uber Eats and DoorDash) adhered to their own policy for all deliveries.

Of all the orders placed (n=46), 15% (n=7) had at least one online age confirmation request on the ordering website or portal.

Delivery speeds

Overall, the average speed of all deliveries was 50 hours and 24 minutes. For rapid deliveries only, the average delivery speed was 29.5 minutes and the standard deviation 9.5 minutes. The shortest rapid delivery time was 17 minutes, and the longest rapid delivery time was 2 hours and 6 minutes.

For non-rapid deliveries, the average delivery speed was 1 day, 21 hours and 53 minutes, and the standard deviation 1 day, 10 hours and 25 minutes. The shortest non-rapid delivery time was 5 hours and 24 minutes, and the longest non-rapid delivery time was 4 days, 21 hours and 25 minutes.

Delivery drivers

Data was available on the delivery driver for all 45 deliveries. Of these, 23 (51%) of the deliveries were made by drivers hired by the licensee (e.g., a New World delivery driver) or self-employed through a third-party delivery company (e.g., an Uber Eats delivery driver). The remaining 22 (49%) deliveries were made by various independent courier companies (e.g., NZ Post).

Discussion

This study documents the age verification processes on delivery for a number of online Auckland alcohol delivery companies, particularly rapid delivery companies. The findings show that for the majority of deliveries age identification was not requested; it was common for alcohol to be left unattended at the doorstep or delivered without requesting identification. This has implications for under 18-year-olds accessing alcohol, as online tick-boxes can be easy to circumnavigate, in which case the alcohol is likely to be delivered to them without an identification check. This is in contrast to a recent study in Western Australia,²² where almost none of the sample of deliveries were left unattended.

Given that New Zealand’s current regulations likely did not anticipate the large growth and availability of online alcohol deliveries, it is not surprising that many orders were left unattended. While it has not been tested, an offence could be established under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 if an alcohol delivery is handed to a minor or intoxicated person, whereas leaving an order unattended may not attract any offence. As delivery orders can contain unlimited amounts of alcohol, this highlights that further regulation is both necessary and desirable.

As well as this, there appeared to be an incongruence between the companies’ policies for the delivery of restricted items and the actual processes followed by their delivery drivers. All companies had available statements or policies stating that identification must be provided, yet only two companies followed this for all deliveries. Companies evidently identify a need to require identification at delivery, but this does not appear to adequately transfer down to the on-the-ground delivery procedures.

It was also notable that, apart from supermarkets and third-party delivery companies, most alcohol companies outsourced the deliveries to courier companies. While a courier company may be held liable for delivery to a minor or an intoxicated person, they are not responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure that the receiver is over the purchase age (this sits with the licensee). Currently, there is no mandate to train couriers on the particulars for delivering alcohol and it is unknown if and how couriers have had the company restricted items policies explained to them. That being said, a lack of age identification checks was seen across almost all companies and delivery drivers.

Interestingly, the rapid delivery companies appeared to be following their own policies more closely, with over half of the rapid speed deliveries (56%) requiring age verification compared with only 7% of other deliveries. In particular, Uber Eats and DoorDash asked for identification on every delivery made in this sample. The reasons behind this may vary. Firstly, rapid delivery companies are newer to the market and may have more comprehensive processes or training requirements. Being newer on the market and serving a more niche clientele may result in a greater protectiveness of their reputation and financial proceeds, and thus more robust training processes. Similarly, several rapid delivery companies have started requiring the customer to confirm a special code to the driver to claim their food items, to minimise the chance of the food being delivered to the wrong person. It is possible that alcohol policies have also been included in these stricter processes. As well as this, several countries overseas have banned the delivery of alcohol through third-party delivery companies. Pressures from overseas may be resulting in more consistent adherence to their own policies in New Zealand.

Lastly, the speed of the rapid delivery companies show how quickly alcohol can be supplied in Auckland. With the average delivery time for rapid deliveries being under 30 minutes, this vastly increases the accessibility of alcohol. In turn, this is likely to increase consumption, extend drinking sessions past when they would have otherwise finished and increase subsequent alcohol-related harm.

More than anything, this speed of access shows the highly changed nature of alcohol delivery since New Zealand’s alcohol laws were introduced in 2012. At that time, alcohol delivery was uncommon and relegated primarily to boutique wine distributers, with delivery usually taking a number of days. In Australia, several states (New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia) have amended their alcohol laws in the last few years in attempt to keep pace with the new online retail trends. However, New Zealand legislation has not kept up with the changing landscape of alcohol delivery and requires updating to address many of the new and emerging features of today’s rapid and prolific alcohol delivery environment.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, being a small study over a short period in a specific area limits the generalisability of the findings. Similarly, the data collection was undertaken by one research assistant and collected at only three sites. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of age verification processes, the methods could be replicated with a number of research assistants over numerous sites.

Secondly, while the research assistant did appear as a young person, if the research assistant had been under the age of 18 this would have strengthened arguments around potential harms and supply to minors.

Thirdly, the scope of the study allowed only for a focus on rapid delivery companies, supermarkets and a select few others. A larger study could explore the age verification processes across a range of different companies, both long-standing and newly established, including off-licences with online delivery options.

Lastly, further research exploring the age verification processes across different parts of New Zealand would be useful to assess whether these results are found elsewhere. In particular, future research might evaluate whether differences exist between regions, including university towns like Dunedin, where young people might be more inclined to utilise rapid delivery companies and engage in heavy drinking sessions.

Recommendations

Despite the limitations in the size and generalisability of the study, the findings do raise points to consider, particularly around changes that could be made to the legislation to reduce and prevent alcohol-related harm through online alcohol deliveries. These changes might include: banning “contactless” delivery of alcohol (that is, leaving alcohol deliveries unattended at the place of delivery); mandatory age verification checks on delivery, stipulating that alcohol cannot be delivered without sighting the identification of the receiver; and mandatory digital age verification checks at point of sale (whether online, or through a mobile application). This has been implemented overseas, including some states in Australia,²² so many of the companies that operate across both Australia and New Zealand are likely to already be implementing this technology overseas. Additional changes might also include mandating alcohol deliveries to be next day only, and enforcement and monitoring of these provisions.

Notably, many of these changes could be made in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013 under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. This means that the changes can more easily and quickly be implemented by the Minister, foregoing the usual Select Committee process.

In conclusion, this is the first New Zealand study to document age verification processes of alcohol companies for alcohol deliveries. The findings demonstrate that it is common for alcohol delivery orders in Auckland to be delivered without an age verification check, and that a number of rapid delivery companies will deliver alcohol to an address within 30 minutes. This has implications for increasing the availability and accessibility of alcohol and alcohol-related harm, including supply to minors. Additional regulation addressing alcohol delivery is needed in New Zealand.