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

231–240 of 580 posts

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

#231

Post by amyjess »

_sbrk wrote: post #222
amyjess wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GO GET YOUR OWN FOOD That's really something to say to people who are 100% quarantined during a pandemic.

I live in a state which has one of the highest new-cases-per-day number, and we can still go get take-out. 1) I call in my order. 2) I drive to the restaurant. 3) I put my mask on. 4) I go inside, get my sack of food. 5) I drive home. We do a lot of cooking at home, which we find to be enjoyable, so this doesn't happen very often. Costco same-day (via Instacart), even when it tacks on 20% to the cost of items, is per…

Quarantine means quarantine. It sounds like you're failing to properly observe quarantine.

1. I don't have a vehicle of any kind.

2. I am at severely high risk for COVID-19 complications due to multiple medical problems, and I cannot enter a building other than my house under any circumstances.

3. Masks do absolutely nothing to protect you; they protect other people from you. You should wear a mask in case you're sick and asymptomatic so nobody gets the virus from you, but it won't prevent you from getting infected.

4. I am autistic and cannot wear a mask for more than a couple of minutes due to sensory issues, and during those couple of minutes I am constantly touching my face. Because I'm not an irresponsible maniac, I am doubly committed to staying home 24/7 for the entire duration of the pandemic. Even if I wasn't at elevated risk for complications, I would not leave my house unless I was dying.

5. Multiple studies have shown that the virus aerosolizes in your breath and hangs in the air after you breathe for several minutes, if not hours. If there is any kind of fan, the aerosol will be blown all over the entire interior of the building and everyone gets infected. If not, it hangs in place and anyone who walks through anywhere you ever stood will get infected.

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

#232

Post by princevegeta89 »

carlmr wrote: post #218
maltelandwehr wrote: post #71

Next week there will be complaints that food delivery services are no longer catering to certain areas. Instead of accepting that it is just not profitable for them, journalists will label it as backslash or an act of punishment. Same thing happened in others states/cities that implemented similar rules. The winners are people living in central areas of the city with lots of restaurants. The losers are the poorer out…

How about you have to charge the fee to the customer. The issue isn't taking 25%. It's taking 25% from the restaurant, which means they don't have a profit margin left. If for example the pizza is $10 at the restaurant, make that $12.50 with delivery and $10 without. That way the consumer can decide themselves if they want to pay the added amount for delivery, or if they'd rather walk/drive. Right now they charge you…

It's already 12.5$ with delivery. And even worse, a ton of other fees get added on top of it, making your order total close to 18$. Consumers are already paying enough, so they don't want to pay more. This is the reason why the Apps turn to restaurants instead. Even with that, they aren't still profitable.

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

#233

Post by robrenaud »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #195
lotsofpulp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a completely unnecessary law. Restaurant phone numbers are seconds away using the same device used to order from these apps, and a phone call is free. Absolutely no reason a restaurant can’t recoup extra costs by charging the app users more or simply refusing to do business with the app.

A family member of mine owns a restaurant that does mostly delivery business. He employs his own drivers; he's on GrubHub because it brings in more business and is a net positive for his bottom line. He includes flyers with every order that says, in large obvious text, "Call us directly at [this number] and save 20% compared to GrubHub." He still gets a sizeable amount of repeat business from GrubHub.

I am pretty sure he signed a contract that says he isn't allowed to charge GrubHub users more.

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

#234

Post by chrisseaton »

pwinnski wrote: post #216
chrisseaton wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get it. Doordash or whatever says 'for $x we will put a WhateverBurger burger into your hand'. As long as that's what they achieve, this seems fundamentally honest to me. As a consumer I don't really care where that $x goes to - Doordash, WhateverBurger, delivery person... doesn't seem my business to interfere in people's private financial agreements. The diner gets offered a deal and can take it or no…

That is fundamentally not what Doordash says. Doordash or whatever says 'for $x we will put a $y WhateverBurger burger into your hand,' but $y is already higher than a WhateverBurger costs. People are left thinking that $x isn't that high a cost for delivering a $y burger, but the actual delivery cost is $x plus some percentage of $y, so both the numerator and denominator are falsified. They're lying about their valu…

> Doordash or whatever says 'for $x we will put a $y WhateverBurger burger into your hand,' but $y is already higher than a WhateverBurger costs.

So add $x and $y together. If that price works for you go for it, if not, don't.

A markup plus a fee is already a common thing. It's done so that there is a minimum to cover expenses plus something that can vary with higher value items because you can get more profit from people who are willing to pay for more luxury items. It's not strange or unusual or a foreign concept to anyone already living in a Western economy.

I don't see why you'd care how they arrive at the final price. Just look at the final price.

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

#235

Post by ceejayoz »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #220
ceejayoz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the order closely. > “Purchase Price” means the menu price of an online or phone order. Such term excludes taxes, gratuities, and any other fees that may make up the total cost to the customer of an online order . > It shall be unlawful for a Third-Party, App-Based Food Delivery Platform to charge a Restaurant a fee (including, without limitation, any delivery fee) for the use of its services that totals more th…

> It shall be unlawful for a Third-Party, App-Based Food Delivery Platform to charge a Restaurant a fee ( including, without limitation, any DELIVERY FEE ) for the use of its services that totals more than 10% of the Purchase Price of the order made through the Third-Party, App-Based Food Delivery Platform. Do delivery apps charge "delivery fees" to restaurants as well as to the customer? Yes, the ordinance applies t…

I don't see what you find confusing in that wording.

They can't charge a restaurant a big delivery fee. Whether they are or not currently is immaterial; that wording prevents them from going "fine, we won't charge commission, we'll just tack on a different fee that replaces it".

Legislation often includes these sorts of "we know you think this is a loophole, it isn't" wordings.

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

#236

Post by _sbrk »

amyjess wrote: post #207
lotsofpulp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a completely unnecessary law. Restaurant phone numbers are seconds away using the same device used to order from these apps, and a phone call is free. Absolutely no reason a restaurant can’t recoup extra costs by charging the app users more or simply refusing to do business with the app.

This discriminates against deaf/mute customers and customers with severe social anxiety who can't speak to another person. Charging higher prices to the disabled violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

You could always obtain a TDD terminal, use those facilities to call the restaurant (call TDD, interpreter then calls the restaurant, ..) to place the order.

IANAL. You could also sue and see how it comes out.

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

#237

Post by zild3d »

airstrike wrote: post #86

Why does it have to be a percentage? Taking the food from point A to point B costs the same whether it's sardines or caviar. I never understood this... Seems like charging for the distance traveled and even the time of day would make a lot more sense

> Taking the food from point A to point B costs the same whether it's sardines or caviar

orders for 1-2 people yes, but that doesn't handle large orders for parties, etc

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

#238

Post by uedue828e »

pwinnski wrote: post #202
MisterTea wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need these services that badly that you're willing to get the government involved? If you don't like the product or the company ethics then don't give them money. The only lesson greed will ever learn from is No Sale.

I don't follow your logic. I don't need these services badly at all. But since they exist, and are predatory, they "naturally" interpose themselves between the restaurants and their customers unless great effort is made by both the restaurants and all of their customers to avoid it. It's not a question of wanting or not wanting the services. Some of these companies are so nasty and predatory that they are very, very…

There isn't a single food delivery or ride hailing service in the world that is very very hard to avoid.

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

#239

Post by quotemstr »

Price controls create shortages. They always have and always will. You can't just create by fiat the economic outcomes that you'd prefer. You have to create the conditions under which those outcomes become natural. If you want to limit monopoly pricing of food delivery services, limit monopolistic behavior by breaking up large players. Don't allow one company to dominate an industry and then arbitrarily cap its revenue to some number that feels good.

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

#240

Post by chrisseaton »

abc-xyz wrote: post #179
chrisseaton wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's falsifying the restaurants prices. It's marking them up... yeah. Is that a problem? Do you realise when you go to a store all the products are 'falsified' by marking them up on top of what the producer sells them to the retailer for?

I’m pretty sure that in most countries, a store can’t just sell another company’s products without entering an agreement with them. This agreement allows the company to set a minimum and maximum price for the product. Imagine you’re selling chocolate that you want people to associate with luxury/wealth. To achieve this you might want to limit resellers to be 5 star hotels and luxury stores rather than the 1 dollar st…

> I’m pretty sure that in most countries, a store can’t just sell another company’s products without entering an agreement with them.

Of course you can. What makes you think you can't?

Post reply on HN