[deleted]
California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
301–310 of 663 posts
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#302This is such a great law, I wish my State would enact something similar. The real link to my local chinese restaurant is the 3rd link down. The apps links are always first. The only way I know it's the real site is if "pick-up" is offered as an option. I'd much prefer the restaurant got the full margin, than some app.
Even then, I’ve caught Seamless showing restaurants as being closed or not having delivery when they’re open and they do, just not through Seamless.
I wasn’t sure if this was sloppy or malicious, but it costs restaurants customers in a pandemic.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#303always entertaining how regulation unintentionally acts to increase barriers to entry for incumbents. in this case closing the barn doors almost a decade after the horse left the stable. you couldn't pay politicians enough for the favors they perform in earnest. edit:to elaborate, the growth hacks of the likes of Doordash and Postmates doing exactly this got them their start, now it will be illegal to compete with th…
> growth hacks Tech speak for: breaking the law. But hey, money, so who cares if we ruin a bunch of lives and make the world a worse place? Isn't that what technology is all about?
Move fast and break people.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem messed up that we see a bad behavior, create a law to ban that behavior, and the law's biggest beneficiary is the company doing the bad behavior.
On other hand should then the bad behaviour be allowed to continue forever? Isn't something late better than never?
Yes but if you don’t also punish the companies who did the bad thing then you end up just giving them a moat.
I’m of two minds about our legal system in this regard. It’s nice that you don’t really ever have to be worried about getting punished for things you did in the past suddenly being declared illegal but in doing so it rewards entities who have no conscience. And large groups of people acting together are quite good at silencing individual consciences.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
That “free” advertising is competing with your own channels (without the 30% commission). Also there are uncountable reports of them fucking up the delivery itself by not having appropriate containers, when the restaurant they are dealing doesn’t actually do deliveries. That will lose you customers and hurt your brand.
I’m confused. How is GrubHub getting a 30% commission out of restaurants that don’t actively partner with them?
I think they mean that other partnered restaurants get 30%. I could be misreading it though.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#306I wonder what the secondary consequences will be. The gig worker law had some nasty secondary consequences for musicians and such. These regulations really seem to hurt the little guys.
That said, the law is short and doesn't even go to deeply into what an "agreement" is. So maybe it's ok?
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#307This is undeniably a good thing if you put yourself in the shoes of the restaurant. Imagine if someone went around impersonating your business online, leveraging the good name you have built for yourself over the decades. They create ads offering your expert development services, ostensibly competing with your existing website, but with intentionally slashed pricing and a ‘creatively’ misrepresented offering (aka gro…
IDK, this seems more like a mixed-bag to me on account of being opt-in instead of opt-out. Absolutely I agree that businesses should be able to easily opt out of being listed on a given delivery platform if/when it causes problems for them. But on the flip side, I've observed a lot of restaurant owners not having the time, energy, or know-how to set up even basic online things that could really boost their business.…
Opt-in doesn't mean the delivery business has to just sit around hoping that restaurants will reach out to opt-in. A delivery business can contact the restaurants to ask them to opt-in.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nowhere on their about page do they make it clear that they also have restaurants who are not their partners listed on their platform . The given ask that there is a clear disclaimer. I’m saying it’s not clear at all, and therefore the hypothetical has deviated from reality so much that it’s useless.
No, you're just not accepting in the statement you wrote what you claim it means is incorrect - you're now trying to double down that it's not clear but it is clear, you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely as your argument point but through extrapolation it's not necessary, assuming you're able to/have learned how to extrapolate. You really want everyone everywhere on the internet to spell out the…
“Partner” implies agreed upon consent. The assumption from the grub hub text is that all restaurants on their platform are “partners” and have therefore consented.
The two possible omissions are: 1) “partners” does not actually mean consent. 2) They have other restaurants on their platform who are not “partners”, but they have the largest “partner” network even without those unconsenting restaurants.
Both are deceitful of the common reading of the language which implies both consent and that their platform serves only the group mentioned.
It’s leveraging omission and ambiguity to communicate a false hood. 90% of people read it they way grub hub is not using the phrasing.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#309This is undeniably a good thing if you put yourself in the shoes of the restaurant. Imagine if someone went around impersonating your business online, leveraging the good name you have built for yourself over the decades. They create ads offering your expert development services, ostensibly competing with your existing website, but with intentionally slashed pricing and a ‘creatively’ misrepresented offering (aka gro…
The misrepresentation would seem to be the big thing. Someone, let's call them Joe, publishes a list of restaurants online with links to their menus and offers to deliver for the price of the order with tip plus a $10 delivery fee. And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. That seems pretty unobjectionable. And how would the restaurant even know? [ADDED: Subject of course to any heal…
> some consumers will still tend to blame Sally's Piping Hot Burgers when their burger arrives soggy and cold
A friend who manages an excellent restaurant says that this is indeed a problem. One of their signature dishes is fried chicken, and it is glorious. They optimize everything about the meal with the understanding that it's 15-30 seconds from the kitchen to the table. But those are the wrong choices for 15-30 minutes of travel time. You'd be better off just getting Popeye's. But who gets the negative review on Yelp? Not the delivery company.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful there... Apple (or any manufacturer) could say the same thing about Ebay. Any sports team or band could say it about Stubhub. Nike could say it about StockX.
None of those examples claim to be, or otherwise tey to make you think they are, an official outlet for those goods.
Sure they do, of course ebay hosts used items but they also promote direct manufacturer-to-customer sales for many products. Stubhub actually does sell plenty of seats that were never otherwise available to the public, further, with their stadium maps and use of team names, etc, plenty of people might assume they are buying tickets via an official or authorized channel. StockX you likely have a point -- but it still doesn't mean that Nike approves of it and wouldn't try to shut it down if given some statutory assistance meant to target restaurants but written a bit too broadly.