What Rover's Mad Paws Acquisition Means for Australian Pet Sitters
In November 2025, Rover completed its acquisition of Mad Paws, Australia's largest pet sitting marketplace. The deal brought approximately 70,000 sitters and 300,000 pet parents under Rover's umbrella, and it extended Rover's dominance into the Australian and New Zealand markets.
If you are one of those 70,000 sitters, or one of those 300,000 pet parents, you should be paying attention. Because Rover has a very clear playbook for acquisitions, and history tells us exactly what happens next.
I am writing this from the perspective of someone who watched this pattern from the inside. As former CTO of Pawshake, I saw how platform consolidation plays out in the pet sitting industry. I was there when Rover acquired competitors in Europe. I saw what happened to sitter fees, platform policies, and service quality in the aftermath. And I built The Pet Sitter specifically because I believe this trajectory is bad for sitters and bad for pet owners.
The Acquisition Pattern
Rover's acquisition strategy is not subtle, and they deserve credit for executing it with discipline. Here is the history:
2017 — DogVacay (US): Announced 29 March 2017, an all-stock deal with undisclosed terms. Rover bought the only US rival of comparable scale; combined 2016 bookings across the two platforms were over US$150 million.
2018 — DogBuddy (Europe): Announced 30 October 2018. London-based, founded 2013, around 25,000 sitters, giving Rover a footprint across the UK, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. Terms undisclosed.
Then six years without an acquisition — until the ownership changed.
2023 to 2024 — Blackstone takes Rover private: agreed 29 November 2023 at US$11.00 per share (roughly US$2.3 billion, a 61% premium to the 90-day volume-weighted average price), completed February 2024. Everything after this is a private-equity-funded roll-up.
2024 — Cat in a Flat (Europe): Announced 31 October 2024. Founded in London in 2014, over 50,000 care providers and two million visits across nine countries; added Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and Ireland. It continues to trade under its own brand, run by its founders.
2025 — Gudog (Europe): Announced 29 April 2025, alongside launches in Denmark and Ireland. Around 20,000 dog sitters and walkers across eight countries, fewer than ten employees, with an incremental US$15 million committed to European expansion over five years.
2025 — Mad Paws (Australia): The only deal with a public price, because Mad Paws was ASX-listed. The scheme implementation deed was announced 21 July 2025 at A$0.14 per share in cash — a fully diluted equity value of roughly A$62 million and an 87% premium to the last close of 7.5 cents. The scheme became effective on 3 November 2025, with completion announced on 11 November 2025. Rover's first entry into Australia.
Two things stand out. First, the tempo: three of these deals closed in the fifteen months after Blackstone's buyout completed, after six years of nothing. Second, the pattern itself:
- Acquire the leading platform in a market or niche
- Bring it into Rover's ecosystem
- Run Rover's standard economics (a 20% sitter commission, plus an owner booking fee Rover documents at 11%)
- Eventually retire the acquired brand
That fourth step is the one worth watching. DogVacay and DogBuddy — the two acquisitions old enough for it to have played out — are both gone. Cat in a Flat, acquired in late 2024, does still trade under its own name with its founders in place, so the newer deals may be given a longer runway. But no brand Rover has acquired has stayed independent indefinitely, and Mad Paws sitters would be wise to plan around the pattern rather than the exception.
Update, August 2026: the runway turned out to be seventeen months. At the end of March 2026, Cat in a Flat's sitters were migrated onto Rover and onto Rover's fees; the brand now continues as an owner-facing booking site powered by Rover. Step four arrived, and on the owner side the change was stark — a flat booking fee of about £1.50 was replaced by Rover's UK owner service fee of 15%, capped at £49. (Rover's rates differ by market: its standard published position is a 20% sitter commission plus an 11% owner booking fee.)
I am not speculating about the economics. I am describing what the filings and announcements say has already happened.
Where Things Stand, Nine Months On
This section was added in August 2026, nine months after the deal completed. Everything below was checked against primary sources on 16 August 2026.
Nothing has moved yet. That is worth stating plainly, because a lot of the commentary since November has assumed otherwise.
- Mad Paws still runs as Mad Paws. Its own site, its own brand, its own "Mad Paws Guarantee", no Rover logo, no redirect. It is still actively recruiting new sitters.
- Fees are unchanged. Still 20% sitter commission, still the grandfathered 15% for sitters who joined before 29 June 2017. The owner booking fee is still not published as a number anywhere — the terms simply defer to whatever appears at checkout.
- The terms were refreshed on 17 June 2026 — seven months after completion — and still contract solely with Mad Paws Pty Ltd. No Rover mentions, no account-transfer clause. That matters, because Cat in a Flat's migration was executed precisely by moving its users onto Rover's terms.
- There is no Rover migration notice for Mad Paws. Rover published one for Cat in a Flat and it is still live. Searching Rover's help centre for Mad Paws returns nothing comparable.
- And Rover does not operate a marketplace in Australia. A boarding search on Rover for Sydney or Melbourne returns no sitters at all, while the same search for a US city returns a full page. Rover's corporate boilerplate now lists Australia in its footprint, but that claim is satisfied by owning Mad Paws — not by having an Australian platform. Right now, an Australian sitter cannot list on Rover.
So the honest position is: the consolidation has happened at the ownership level and not yet at the platform level.
One caveat I want to be straight about. Blackstone took Rover private in 2024, and Mad Paws left the ASX on 12 November 2025. Neither company has any mandatory disclosure obligation left. Cat in a Flat's sitters were told by email before anything was public. "No announcement" is genuinely weaker evidence than it would have been a year ago, and I am not going to present it as a guarantee.
What I will say is that the pattern across six acquisitions has been consistent, and we now have one dated example of how long the quiet part lasts: Cat in a Flat's sitters were migrated seventeen months after that acquisition. Mad Paws is at nine. I do not know the date. Nobody outside Rover does.
Which brings up the thing actually worth acting on. It is mid-August. Australian pet care peaks over Christmas and January, and those bookings start landing from September. If you are going to change anything about how your business runs — where your clients live, who owns the relationship, what percentage leaves your pocket — the sane time to do it is in the quiet weeks before the season, not in the middle of a fully-booked December while a platform migration lands in your inbox. Decisions made under that kind of pressure are rarely the ones you would have chosen.
What Changes for Mad Paws Sitters
Commission Rates
Mad Paws publishes its sitter commission by signup date: 15% of the Pet Service Fee (including GST) for sitters who joined before 29 June 2017, and 20% for everyone who joined since. Rover's standard commission is also 20%.
For most Mad Paws sitters, then, the headline rate does not change — they were already paying 20%. The sitters with the most at stake are the grandfathered 15% cohort. If the migration moves them onto Rover's 20%, a full-time sitter earning $3,000/month in bookings faces this difference:
- Mad Paws grandfathered rate (15%): $450/month commission = $5,400/year
- Rover (20%): $600/month commission = $7,200/year
- Annual increase: $1,800
That would be $1,800 more per year taken from the same bookings, the same clients, the same work. And even where the percentage stays put, the deeper problem is structural: with the main local competitor absorbed rather than competing, there is no market pressure left to ever bring that 20% down.
Owner Service Fees
This is the side of the fee structure that pet owners feel most directly.
Rover documents an 11% owner booking fee on top of the sitter's listed rate, plus a marketplace fee on California bookings (Rover support documentation, re-checked 6 September 2026 — the US page states no cap on this fee). That is Rover's published US position; fees can vary by market, so check your own booking statements. Mad Paws also charges owners a booking fee — its help pages confirm it scales with the length of the booking — but the rate is not published anywhere; owners only discover it at checkout.
What this means in practice: at Rover's documented 11%, a pet owner booking boarding at $50/night pays $55.50. The sitter on a 20% commission receives $40, so $15.50 of every night goes to the platform. The equivalent gap on Mad Paws cannot be calculated from public information, because its owner-side fee is not published. That is the contrast worth noticing: Rover documents its owner fee; Mad Paws does not.
Some owners will absorb this. Others will look for cheaper sitters, creating downward pressure on rates. Either way, the sitter loses.
Platform and Policy Changes
Beyond fees, expect changes to:
- Cancellation policies: Rover's cancellation policies differ from Mad Paws' and generally favour the platform
- Payment timing: Rover releases funds to sitters 2 days after the booking starts, which may differ from Mad Paws' timing
- Communication restrictions: Rover has sophisticated anti-circumvention systems that monitor messages for phone numbers, email addresses, and other contact information
- Profile requirements: Sitter profiles will likely be migrated to Rover's format, which may require updates
- App and interface: The Mad Paws app and website will eventually be replaced by Rover's platform
The Bigger Picture: Why Consolidation Hurts Sitters
Platform consolidation in any marketplace industry follows a predictable economic logic, and it almost never benefits the supply side (in this case, sitters).
When multiple platforms compete for sitters, they compete on fees, features, and service quality. Sitters can choose the platform that offers the best deal. Platforms that raise fees too high lose sitters to competitors. This competitive pressure keeps fees in check and forces platforms to invest in features that sitters actually want.
When one platform dominates — through acquisition, not through building a better product — that competitive pressure disappears. The dominant platform can raise fees incrementally because sitters have nowhere else to go. Each 1-2% increase in commission seems small in isolation, but compound it over years and it represents a massive transfer of wealth from sitters to the platform.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. It is what happened in the US market after Rover acquired DogVacay. It is what happened in the UK after Rover acquired DogBuddy. And it is what will happen in Australia now that Rover has acquired Mad Paws.
From Pawshake's Perspective
I can share that similar dynamics were discussed internally at Pawshake. The pet sitting marketplace industry in the 2020s was defined by the question of consolidation: who acquires whom, and what happens to fees afterward.
At Pawshake, we watched Rover's acquisition strategy with a mixture of concern and recognition. Concern because fewer competitors meant less market discipline. Recognition because the economics of commission-based marketplaces push inevitably toward consolidation — platforms need scale to be profitable, and acquiring competitors is faster than organic growth.
The uncomfortable truth is that commission-based pet sitting marketplaces face a structural problem: their revenue model requires them to extract an ever-increasing percentage from each transaction. When growth slows (as it inevitably does in any market), the only way to maintain revenue growth is to raise fees. And when you have eliminated your competitors through acquisition, there is nothing stopping you.
What Australian Sitters Should Consider
If you are a pet sitter in Australia who was on Mad Paws, you have several options.
Stay on Mad Paws
This is the path of least resistance, and for now it is genuinely unchanged: same platform, same profile, same reviews, same fees. The cost is a 20% commission — or 15% if you are one of the grandfathered pre-2017 sitters — and, whenever the migration does arrive, terms set by a company you did not choose.
If you earn $36,000/year, a 20% commission is $7,200 a year ($5,400 on the grandfathered rate). Over five years at 20%, that is $36,000 in total platform fees. Consider whether the value you receive — search visibility, booking management, payment processing — is worth $7,200 per year to you.
Worth knowing: if the Cat in a Flat precedent repeats, a migration would move you onto Rover's terms and Rover's fee schedule, not Mad Paws'. What that schedule looks like for Australia is unknowable today, because Rover has no Australian marketplace to publish fees for.
Diversify Across Multiple Platforms
Listing on multiple platforms reduces your dependency on any single one. In Australia today that means Mad Paws, Pawshake, Floofers and The Pet Sitter — Rover itself is not an option for Australian sitters, since it has no marketplace here. Each has different fee structures, audience sizes, and geographic strengths.
The downside is managing multiple calendars, profiles, and booking systems. But the upside is resilience — if one platform raises fees or changes policies in ways that hurt you, you have alternatives already in place.
Build Your Own Client Base
The long-term play for any professional pet sitter is building a direct client base that does not depend on any platform. This means investing in your own online presence (even a simple Google Business profile and Instagram account), collecting direct contact details from clients, and encouraging word-of-mouth referrals.
Platforms are excellent for finding new clients. But once you have established a relationship with a pet owner — once they trust you with their animal and you know their pet's routine — the value of the platform as an intermediary diminishes rapidly. The 20% commission is justified for client acquisition. It is much harder to justify for the 15th booking with the same client.
Consider Subscription-Based Alternatives
I am obviously biased here, but the alternative to commission-based platforms is not "no platform at all." It is platforms that charge a flat, predictable fee instead of a percentage of your earnings.
The Pet Sitter has a free plan and a flat annual subscription — no monthly option, no percentage. The free plan is genuinely free and card-free: profile, a permanent booking link, unlimited bookings, messaging, calendar sync, report cards, and a client list for up to 10 clients. The paid plan adds the business tools — invoicing, importing your existing clients, importing your reviews from other platforms, rebook reminders, and no cap on clients. Commission on bookings is 0% on every plan, permanently. A sitter earning $36,000/year keeps essentially all of it, minus standard payment processing.
If you want the seasonal argument rather than the structural one, we wrote that up separately: why the run-up to summer is the moment to move.
We are building our sitter network, and sitters can join from anywhere — the software is sold worldwide, not city by city. If you are a Mad Paws sitter looking for alternatives, you can start on the free plan today, and the first 100 Pro subscribers lock in a founding rate of €199/year + VAT for as long as they keep their subscription; after that, new subscribers pay €299/year + VAT.
What This Means for Pet Owners
If you are a pet owner in Australia, the Rover-Mad Paws acquisition affects you in two ways.
First, the owner-side fees. Rover documents an 11% owner booking fee on top of the sitter's listed rate, plus a marketplace fee on California bookings (Rover support documentation, re-checked 6 September 2026 — the US page states no cap on this fee) — that is its published US position, and fees can vary by market. For a 7-night booking at $50/night, 11% is an extra $38.50 in fees. Mad Paws charges an owner booking fee too, one that scales with the length of the booking, but does not publish the rate — you only see it at checkout.
Second, you have fewer choices. Market consolidation means fewer platforms competing for your business, which means less innovation, less responsiveness to feedback, and less incentive for the platform to prioritise your experience.
The best thing you can do is support alternatives. List with sitters on multiple platforms. Try emerging platforms that offer better economics for sitters — because when sitters earn more, they invest more in the quality of care they provide to your pet.
The Road Ahead
The Australian pet care market is worth over AUD $3.3 billion and growing. Dog ownership surged during the pandemic years and has remained elevated. The demand for quality pet sitting has never been higher.
The question is whether that demand will be served by a single dominant platform extracting 20%+ from every booking, or by a competitive marketplace that gives sitters choices and lets them keep more of what they earn.
Rover is betting on consolidation. We are betting on a different model entirely. The Australian pet sitting market is large enough for alternatives, and the sitters who build that market deserve better than watching their fees go up every time their platform gets acquired.
If you are an Australian pet sitter, the choice is yours. But make it an informed one.