Klarna is a Swedish fintech company that offers “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) services, among other payment solutions. It lets shoppers split purchases into interest-free installments, pay after delivery, or finance purchases over time. It’s integrated with many online retailers and also has a mobile app where users can track spending, manage payments, and sometimes even get rewards.

Klarna recently filed for an IPO and plans to trade on the NYSE.

DoorDash is a U.S.-based on-demand food delivery service founded in 2013. It connects consumers with local restaurants and stores, allowing users to order food, groceries, and other essentials through its app or website.

DoorDash became a publicly traded company in December 2020.

Strange Bedfellows?

The recent partnership between Klarna and DoorDash has stirred up more than a few spicy takes. At first glance, it’s just another “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) option added to a growing list. But the backlash has been loud —and honestly, revealing.

Why the outrage? Because the idea of financing fast food feels absurd to many. Social media had a field day: “Can’t wait to default on my crab boil” and “Financing fries is peak capitalism” were just a few of the punchlines. But underneath the jokes is a serious concern: are we normalizing debt for cravings, not needs?

To be fair, Klarna isn’t new —and many people (myself included) appreciate the flexibility it provides. When money is tight and the need is real — whether it’s groceries, medicine, or a sudden household expense — Klarna can be a lifesaver. It’s not about recklessness; it’s about timing and options.

The Controversy

The controversy with DoorDash wasn’t about Klarna itself. It was about context and perception.

There’s a difference between using Klarna to:
   •   Replace a broken appliance,
   •   Afford groceries before payday, or
   •   Even get to work via Uber…

…and using it to split the cost of a $14 burger and fries.

That difference matters — not just practically, but psychologically. When BNPL services are marketed for luxury or convenience, not necessity, they risk becoming tools of impulse rather than tools of empowerment. And when everyday comfort food gets tied to micro-debt, it raises red flags about who’s being targeted and why.

But, Uber is also on Klarna.  What’s the difference between Uber on Klarna and Doordash on Klarna? 

I’m glad you asked.

Uber’s Klarna integration (which is more established in Europe but expanding elsewhere) tends to focus on ride-sharing and scheduled services like Uber Reserve or even Uber Eats in some markets. Klarna is often presented as a flexible payment option for planned expenses or higher-ticket rides, not necessarily impulse purchases.

DoorDash on Klarna, however, immediately sparked controversy because it promoted “buy now, pay later” for takeout and fast food. Critics argue that it feels more like going into debt for instant gratification, especially since food deliveries are often spur-of-the-moment, lower-value transactions.

So while both offer BNPL, the perception and use case differ — Uber feels more like transportation (a need), while DoorDash is associated more with comfort food (a want).

Could Doordash argue that accepting Klarna is not different from using credit cards at restaurants?

Absolutely — and they probably will.

From a purely financial instrument perspective, Klarna is functionally similar to a credit card: it lets you delay payment. People have been using credit cards at restaurants for decades without the same backlash.

But the key counterargument from critics is that:

Credit cards come with broader protections and credit-building potential. BNPL services often lack the same oversight, can encourage overuse due to the “fee-free” messaging, and may result in late fees or lowered credit if mismanaged — especially for users who don’t fully understand the terms. There’s a behavioral difference: BNPL psychologically feels easier than swiping a credit card—leading to impulse-driven spending without fully counting the cost.

So, the debate is less about the mechanics and more about ethics and optics. Offering Klarna for fast food delivery feels exploitative to many, even if it’s financially similar to a credit card.

Let’s Dive Deeper

1. Behavioral Psychology of “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL):

BNPL services like Klarna are framed differently than credit cards. They market themselves as:

Interest-free (if paid on time), Hassle-free (no lengthy credit checks), and Flexible, especially for younger users who may not qualify for traditional credit.

That psychological framing lowers the mental barrier to spending, especially when:

There’s no upfront cost, The total is split into small, manageable chunks, and You’re not paying immediately — which decouples the pain of paying from the pleasure of consuming.

In practice: You order a $30 DoorDash meal. Klarna shows: “Only $7.50 today.” That feels painless. But repeat it a few times a week, and suddenly you have a growing stack of micro-debts.

2. The Debt Snowball in Disguise:

For people with tight budgets, these micro-payments can accumulate fast. BNPL has been shown to lead to:

Overlapping payments (paying for meals eaten weeks ago), Budgeting confusion, since multiple small debts come due at different times, And for some, eventual delinquency, which can hurt credit if the provider reports missed payments.

Unlike credit cards, where you see a running balance, BNPL platforms segment debt into small chunks, making it harder to see the total picture.

3. DoorDash’s Role in Financial Behavior:

DoorDash now sits at the intersection of impulse-driven behavior and consumer debt. It’s not just food delivery anymore — it’s offering micro-financing for instant convenience. That creates a few concerns:

Exploitation vs. Empowerment: Is this empowering people with flexible payment options or exploiting their financial vulnerability?

Essential vs. Non-Essential Spending: If someone is using Klarna to afford groceries or necessary transportation (like some Uber uses), that feels very different than financing late-night fast food cravings.

Normalization of Financing Necessities: Critics fear that as BNPL becomes more integrated into daily life, it normalizes debt as a survival tool, not just a convenience.

4. Regulatory Implications:

Governments and regulators are starting to take note. In the U.S., UK, and EU:

BNPL companies are under increasing scrutiny for transparency, data sharing, and late fee policies. There’s talk of requiring clearer disclosures — like total repayment amounts and potential penalties. Some propose limits on what types of purchases can be financed via BNPL — especially essentials like food or medicine.

If regulators decide that services like DoorDash + Klarna blur ethical lines, we might see new consumer protection laws emerge.

5. A Bit of a Curveball: The Social Media Effect

This whole backlash didn’t just happen in boardrooms or newspapers — it exploded on X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok, Reddit. People joked:

“Can’t wait to finance my fries and default on my nuggets.”

That public ridicule is a reputational risk for DoorDash. Optics matter. Companies now have to consider how financial partnerships “feel” to the public — especially in an economy where people are already struggling.

Pivot

That said, DoorDash could absolutely pivot:
   •   Limit Klarna to larger or planned purchases (think family meals or groceries),
   •   Focus on scheduled food plans or DashMart essentials,
   •   Provide in-app spending insights and soft nudges that encourage mindful use.

Because here’s the truth: Klarna can be part of a responsible financial toolkit —but only if companies treat it with the gravity it deserves. It’s not just a checkout button; it’s a financial decision point.

And for consumers? The power lies in intentional use. Klarna, like credit cards, isn’t the villain. But how it’s marketed, when it’s used, and what it’s used for—that’s where wisdom and discernment matter.

Bottomline

As fintech keeps evolving, the ethical bar should rise with it. It’s not just about offering choices — it’s about how those choices are shaped, framed, and delivered.

Let’s not shame the tool. Let’s use it wisely, and expect better from the companies offering it.

Reflective Question:

“What do you think—should services like Klarna draw a line between what’s flexible and what’s exploitative? Or is it all about how we, the users, choose to engage?”