Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

oregonlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 580 posts

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#101

Post by adrianmsmith »

jiofih wrote: post #59
adrianmsmith wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with that? If the restaurants are getting the price they want to charge, and if the customers are prepared to pay the higher price, seems everything's OK? I agree that it's scammy that grubhub etc. is pretending to be the restaurant. But if they made it clear, we are a delivery service giving you access to this restaurant, if you want to order this food you can do so for $17.99, I think everything would…

If, but that’s not what they are doing. So there’s everything wrong with that.

Understood. But then the law should ban pretending to be someone else (it probably does, but evidently not effectively enough). Having a cap of x% on fees won't solve this problem. It will solve another problem which wasn't a problem in the first place.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#102

Post by fipar »

chvid wrote: post #82
fipar wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that the full delivery app fee goes to the delivery worker?

Who is the delivery worker? Is it the guy on the scooter? The app developer in the office? The marketing guy brought your attention to the take-away place and caused you to make the order? Since all these services are operating at the loss, the "delivery worker" might actually get more than the full fee.

I think 'delivery worker' is a clear term that identifies the worker that brings the food to someone's door. It's certainly the term that identifies, of all the people on your list, the one in the most fragile position.

But in any case, my point is that the cap is not on how much that person can make, but on how much these companies can charge.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#103

Post by swalsh »

This feels like capping extortion. The real problem in my opinion is the delivery apps masquerading under a restaurants name online, and then then charging for it. When I order online, I have no idea if i'm ordering from the restaurant directly, or if i'm ordering from some app that's registered a website under their name, and has better SEO.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#104

Post by cocoa19 »

cocoa19 wrote: post #93

I disagree with this move. Why should we force a cap rather than let market competition improve prices? I believe it's better to fix shady practices. If I pay 25% to Uber, I want to know I paid 25% to them and not the restaurant. Then I can decide if the time savings is worth that 25% or not.

In addition, food delivery is not a basic need, it's a luxury.

If a luxury delivery service drives Lamborghinis and charge 200 to wealthy people, so be it. If a Toyota Corolla wants to charge up to 25% for your local pasta restaurant, so be it.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#105

Post by admax88q »

castlecrasher2 wrote: post #70
chrisseaton wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the restaurants are getting the option of delivery and the increased customer base and advertising... for absolutely no change to themselves? And the customers who use delivery are the ones paying for it? And if they don't want to pay it they can still go straight to the restaurant who will again make the same money? Sounds like a win to absolutely everyone involved. What is everyone's problem? Why do we want to i…

>What is everyone's problem? Why do we want to interfere with this? Because customers who order through Grubhub/Doordash blame the restaurant for issues such as high prices and wrong orders instead of Grubhub/Doordash. So on one hand, the restaurant gets increased business but on the other they never interact with the customer directly and so their business' reputation depends on Grubhub/Doordash/etc to not fuck up,…

That's a messaging/marketing issue, which we regulate all the time.

It would be better and fairer to legislate that GrubHub and others must be clear about where their pricing comes from rather than legislating what their prices should be.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#107

Post by delfinom »

cocoa19 wrote: post #93

I disagree with this move. Why should we force a cap rather than let market competition improve prices? I believe it's better to fix shady practices. If I pay 25% to Uber, I want to know I paid 25% to them and not the restaurant. Then I can decide if the time savings is worth that 25% or not.

Hah, that's hardly the beginning of their shady practices.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#108

Post by mchusma »

If we were going to limit profits, we should target visa/MasterCard/amex instead.

They are a true oligopoly taxing the entire economy and have acted in a highly anti-trust fashion. Limiting their fees to something like 0.1% of the transaction is plenty to not lose money and would put back something like 2.8% of every transaction back into lower prices or into the businesses hands.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#109

Post by EForEndeavour »

ceejayoz wrote: post #98
cocoa19 wrote: post #93

I disagree with this move. Why should we force a cap rather than let market competition improve prices? I believe it's better to fix shady practices. If I pay 25% to Uber, I want to know I paid 25% to them and not the restaurant. Then I can decide if the time savings is worth that 25% or not.

> I believe it's better to fix shady practices. If I pay 25% to Uber, I want to know I paid 25% to them and not the restaurant. Isn't this what this does? It's a cap on the hidden cut these apps take from what the bill shows as the restaurant's revenue. Instead of taking 30% of my $10 pizza, Uber/Grubhub/etc. now have to decide to put that $3 in the fee they show to the user if they want that revenue.

I think the parent commenter would prefer a law that requires ordering platforms to list their cut separately, but doesn't actually cap how big that cut can be. That would give customers more information to choose for themselves whether to use a given ordering platform.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#110

Post by BurningFrog »

treis wrote: post #69
chrisseaton wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the restaurants are getting the option of delivery and the increased customer base and advertising... for absolutely no change to themselves? And the customers who use delivery are the ones paying for it? And if they don't want to pay it they can still go straight to the restaurant who will again make the same money? Sounds like a win to absolutely everyone involved. What is everyone's problem? Why do we want to i…

It's falsifying the restaurants prices. Grubhub shouldn't be able to say a dish costs $15 when it actually costs $10. It's a false statement that harms the restaurant. Sure, they will get some deliveries but what about the people that would buy at $10 but not $15? And what about the people that won't dine in because they think prices are 50% higher than they are. GrubHub is skimming valuable customers while discardin…

Finally a reasoned critique I can agree with.

Took you long enough, thread!

Post reply on HN