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

California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 663 posts

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#111

Post by mehrdadn »

ummonk wrote: post #110
mehrdadn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here isn't "did delivery apps sometimes impersonate restaurants" (which is why you think this law is redundant), but rather "does this law ban things other than impersonation" (yes, and hence why others are saying a violation of the law need not constitute impersonation).

The point is that the stated reason for the law is impersonation, which is already illegal, but under the guise of cracking down on impersonation of restaurants, the law does much more.

> The point is that the stated reason for the law is impersonation

Is it? I don't see anything in the text about impersonation.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#112

Post by mschuster91 »

ummonk wrote: post #109
ramphastidae wrote: post #105

This 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…

Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?

Because many restaurant owners don't even think about trademarks, or their names are too "generic" to be allowed to trademark.

The usual exception are the franchise operations (mcdonalds, BK, subway, kfc, ...) because these are thought from the start to be exclusive.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#113

Post by mytailorisrich »

This in effect says that it is illegal to pay someone to collect your own food from a restaurant without the restaurant's agreement (only if the service is offered online, though)

This does not make much sense.

Legislators should not rush into kneejerk and populist reactions.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#114

Post by Slartie »

WalterBright wrote: post #65

If a person decides to buy a pizza from X and then sell it to Y, don't they have a right to?

They have, but not if they pretend to be X or to be somehow contracted by X to do deliveries if that is not actually the case.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#115

Post by Causality1 »

ummonk wrote: post #109
ramphastidae wrote: post #105

This 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…

Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?

Because civil laws only protect people rich enough to hire lawyers.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#116

Post by mytailorisrich »

ramphastidae wrote: post #105

This 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…

You are skipping quite a few steps here by jumping to "impersonating a business online", which I suspect is already illegal.

This bill says that it would be illegal to pick food on behalf of someone else without the restaurant's agreement (if you're an online platform). The is no question of dishonesty or impersonation, just of offering this service.

This is quite an extreme restriction, IMHO, and seems to be a kneejerk and simplistic response to a perceived problem.

On the other hand, the problem of online reviews is separate and should be addressed specifically, IMHO. At the moment it's the wild West and a breeding ground for defamation. Maybe regulating this should get more attention from lawmakers (though I realise that in the US the 1st Amendment may make this difficult).

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#117

Post by powerapple »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #98
powerapple wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol. That's nice. I can see from the trademark point of view, it makes sense to stop other people from listing your business in their list, brands should be protected. But providing a service for customer should be legal. It would be the same as Taxi drivers should be able to pick you up from your home to a business without the permission of the business.

The difference between what delivery services like Doordash and what Taxi companies are doing is that Doordash is holding themselves out to be the company. There's several instances where Company A has had Service Provider B set up a website in the name of Company A, update Google Listings to replace the Phone number and website of Company A with their own version of the site. Then when an unwitting customer calls th…

I totally agree with you. The business of Doordash should be legal while the exact practices you described above are illegal.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#118

Post by ratww »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #106
ratww wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text that has been quoted all over this thread does say "to take orders and deliver meals" . Sure it could be better worded, but it seems that the intent here is quite clear: to stop the practice that was being done by DoorDash/Postmates.

Look at how the law is formulated: "A food delivery platform shall not X without Y." X is the action the law allows or prohibits. Y decides whether the action is allowed or not. If "authorization to take orders and deliver meals" exists, then they can deliver. If "authorization to take orders and deliver meals" does not exist, then they cannot deliver. "take orders" does not appear in the law anywhere else. It's only…

Like I already said, it could be better worded, but, to me, its intent seems to be quite clear. You make good points, but I still have a different interpretation.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#119

Post by Slartie »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #113

This in effect says that it is illegal to pay someone to collect your own food from a restaurant without the restaurant's agreement (only if the service is offered online, though) This does not make much sense. Legislators should not rush into kneejerk and populist reactions.

No, it is just illegal if that someone pretends to have some sort of reseller contract with the restaurant in order to acquire you as a customer.

If you go to some guy, ask him to pick up food for you and the guy agrees for a fee, that's okay. But the incentive must have come from your side, and the guy must not have used the name of the restaurant to advertise for his services or even pretend to be a "part" of the restaurant.

Legislation often is widely different for the same eventual business act, depending on how the parties came together. It's not new stuff, real estate agents have had such huge difference for ages (at least in Germany, but I assume that other countries also differentiate depending on who initially hired an agent, even though eventually, the agent ends up having contracts with the selling and buying party).

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#120

Post by XorNot »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #116
ramphastidae wrote: post #105

This 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…

You are skipping quite a few steps here by jumping to "impersonating a business online", which I suspect is already illegal. This bill says that it would be illegal to pick food on behalf of someone else without the restaurant's agreement (if you're an online platform). The is no question of dishonesty or impersonation, just of offering this service. This is quite an extreme restriction, IMHO, and seems to be a kneej…

Why? The practice involved is in response to the absolute garbage of misrepresentation of a restaurant's telephone number to be intercepted by your own call centre's.
Post reply on HN