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

Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 288 posts

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#161

Post by judge2020 »

bckygldstn wrote: post #100

The lawsuit [1] lists the following Factual Allegations: • Gruhub tells consumers it’s working cooperatively with restaurants • Grubhub decides to add unaffiliated restaurants to its website and mobile apps without the restaurants’ permission • Grubhub’s unauthorized use of restaurants’ names and logos misleads consumers and harms restaurants • Restaurants have good reasons for choosing not to work with Grubhub ◦ Gru…

Sounds like an open-and-shut case, but GH has the backing of SV lawyers so chances are it'll drag on for 3 years or end in settlement.

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#162

Post by vageli »

chrisseaton wrote: post #107
LandR wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WHat if the delivery person that grubhub uses is useless and the regular delivery person that Restaurant X uses isn't. YOu can end up getting poorly delivered cold food from GrubHub and make restaurant X look bad. Restaurant X might end up having a load of disappointed customers, reduced custom and have no idea why. They dont know there is actually now a middle man they didn't agree to between them and their customer…

You’re attacking the first sale doctrine here though if you think about it!

> You’re attacking the first sale doctrine here though if you think about it!

I can sell a Mac but can't hold myself out as a representative of Apple.

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#163

Post by ciarannolan »

hajile wrote: post #150
MereInterest wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I would count that as any sort of a win, given how the primary owners acquired $11 billion, then were fined only $225 million. I guess crime pays out at 98%. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/sacklers-who-made-11...

Purdue actually paid 8 billion out of 11 billion profit. That seems reasonable as tons of people using their drugs did have a legitimate need. The 235 Million in personal civil liabilities PLUS their losses from owning so much of the company. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... > 8 billion payout on 11 billion profit. That seems reasonable. Not all of the people using their drugs were bein…

They made off with at least $3 billion in profit, are responsible for (at minimum) the deaths of thousands of Americans, and will ride off into the sunset with their billions.

The DOJ delivered a slap on the wrist just in time for the election so that they could claim a win on the opioid crisis.

I don't blame people in this thread for having zero confidence whatsoever in the "justice" system.

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#164

Post by ciarannolan »

nobody9999 wrote: post #132
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many mom and pop restaurants do you know of who have the extra financial capital to find a lawyer to sue over an issue like this against a company as well-funded as grubhub or doordash?

>How many mom and pop restaurants do you know of who have the extra financial capital to find a lawyer to sue over an issue like this against a company as well-funded as grubhub or doordash? It's much, much worse than that. many of those restaurants thrived for years on 5-10% profit margins. Grubhub comes along and charges them 12-30% "commissions" just for forwarding orders and processing credit cards. Forget about…

What's the mechanism that forces restaurants to partner with these food delivery services? Threat of competition if they don't?

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#165

Post by ghthrowaway99 »

doc_gunthrop wrote: post #136
ghthrowaway99 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[ Disclaimer: GH employee but speaking independently & not representing the company in this message ] You're mixing up controversies - there was a separate "feature" Grubhub did years ago where grubhub would stand up online presence for restaurants to bring in web search traffic (branded websites, search results on grubhub.com, etc) and list a grubhub phone number instead of the real phone number so that grubhub coul…

> The restaurant can opt out of this, but they never asked for the service in the first place so it's kinda shitty. That's what this article is about. If the driver places the order without making it clear to the restauranteur that they are the middleman company (UberEats, Doordash, etc.) then the opt-out clause is meaningless. You can't opt out of something you're never aware of.

While I agree, restaurants do tend to pick up on this over time because (more issues with Place & Pay) people will complain to the restaurant about food being cold/slow not realizing that the restaurant isn't even involved in the delivery. Sometimes the delivery people make it quite obvious (e.g. drivers are given GH branded credit cards to pay with)

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#166

Post by nogabebop23 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #53
mabbo wrote: post #19

I hope there's a strong precedent set here. Companies like Grubhub list restaurants on their site/app, but put the wrong phone number on it- one that goes to their own people instead. That's clearly some kind of fraud or misrepresentation. Makes me feel like I should setup a phone number and a website called something like "GrubhubHelp.com", and list a help number for assistance with GrubHub orders. Then when custome…

> That's clearly some kind of fraud or misrepresentation. I don't really understand this point of view. They're saying you'll get food from restaurant X. That's exactly what you do get, at the price you agreed. I can't conceive how that's fraud or misrepresentation?

GrubHub is taking over the relationship between the customer and the restaurant without either of those parties being aware of it. This is clearly a deceptive practice, and now GrubHub influences the customer's perception of the restaurant. Examples of conclusion(cause):

* That place is expensive (GrubHub sets the price which can be higher than the restaurant) * That place screwed up my order (GrubHub's game of telephone made an error) * That place is so slow (The now multi-step transaction slowed down the process)

>> They're saying you'll get food from restaurant X.

They're actually failing to say this, so the reasonable interpretation is "We ARE restaurant X" which is the fraudulent representation at the heart of the case here.

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#167

Post by ciarannolan »

thrownaway954 wrote: post #35
glasss wrote: post #2

At the size / scale of grubhub, it will always be cheaper to do unethical things for money now versus settling out of court later. Knowing someone that used to do sales at grubhub, this doesn't surprise me at all. The company that person currently works at is probably doing the same, because if you can get away with it, why not? Worst thing that happens to the people who put those policies in place is they find anoth…

i'll go even further... the other thing about it is that the owner has to have the money is order to bring the lawsuit to court. also, depending on how backed up the courts are, it could be years before the case brought into court by which time the owner could be out of business. it really is horrible how screwed up our civil court system is.

Are the courts "backed up", or is the process of discovery and everything else leading up to a trial/judgement just a necessarily long one?

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#168

Post by ayewo »

icebraining wrote: post #151
kop316 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Grubhub was against place and pay at first, when UberEats and Doordash began doing it (not because Grubhub is selfless but because partnered restaurants are way more profitable), but resisting place and pay turned out to be a recipe for losing market share so that's no longer the case." If Grubhub actually took a stand and showed they not only did not do this sort of behavior, I would actually use it, and I would pa…

I don't get it, how would the restaurant be losing money from this behaviour? Isn't Grubhub paying the regular takeout price, same as if you order it yourself?

It's a bit more nuanced than that. The best way to think of food delivery businesses funded by VCs is to think of them as payday lenders.

Some background reading: https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitra...

Be sure to also read this insightful comment left by a former GrubHub employee: https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitra...

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#169

Post by judge2020 »

chrisshroba wrote: post #30

Tbh I don't see a major problem with this. If folks want to pay someone (Grubhub) to go pick up food for them, why should the restaurants be allowed to say no? > Food may not travel well. Fair point, but if the customer still wants it, that's on them. > But that may lead to unfairly low ratings for the restaurant. If (say) 30% of the restaurant's patrons choose to get the food via food delivery, why shouldn't those f…

> If folks want to pay someone (Grubhub) to go pick up food for them, why should the restaurants be allowed to say no?

I agree, but GrubHub was marketing as if they were the restaurant. If it was clearly marked as "grub hub pickup for third-party restaurants" people would be more aware that GrubHub is responsible for choosing to deliver a restaurant that isn't interested in partnering to allow delivery.

Re: Grubhub sued for listing restaurants without permission

#170

Post by nogabebop23 »

SilasX wrote: post #98
mgkimsal wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a mortgage in 2005. Company had problems with fraudulent stuff and class action suit brought against them. Outside of whatever their behavior was that triggered the class action, they had poor service to me as an individual, so I'm not terribly surprised they probably cut many other corners (ethically/legally/etc). Anyway... I got my class action settlement checks yesterday. $71 and $74. w00t. EDIT: this was mo…

I agree that class actual settlements are Usually underwhelming, but were you specifically (even in expectation/probabilistically) hurt by those wrongs, and if so, what do you think is the more accurate figure for the harm you faced?

>> class actual settlements are Usually underwhelming

not for the firms that bring them: millions in fees & billing, ranging from the upfront certification efforts (riskier) to the payment & settlement (at this stage, risk-free and very lucrative)

Post reply on HN