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

151–160 of 663 posts

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

#151

Post by johncolanduoni »

kelnos wrote: post #144
s_dev wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the downvotes -- I think there is a genuine question here. There isn't the need for more laws just enforcement of existing ones. Purporting to represent someone elses business is an egregious infringement of trademark.

I would guess that most non-chain restaurants don't own a trademark for their name. It's an expensive process that many likely can't afford.

In CA the business will get common law trademark rights in their geographical area just by virtue of doing business under that name, but they would still need to sue the delivery companies which have in house counsel for these kind of things.

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

#152

Post by danielheath »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #60
danielheath wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A courier can still collect food. They can’t impersonate the restaurant anymore.

The law prohibits a courier from being commissioned to place an order, collect it, and deliver it to you. It’s just criminalizing a perfectly legitimate form of arbitrage. The law isn’t about couriers impersonating restaurants either, because that’s just fraud and it’s already illegal. It’s just another example of a terrible law created at the behest of businesses that aren’t competent enough to keep up with changes…

In practice, every single one of these services has impersonated restaurants and harmed many of their reputations by doing so.

Perhaps the law is poorly written. That happens sometimes; more often when you behave in a way that invites regulation.

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

#153

Post by Ensorceled »

s_dev wrote: post #131
ummonk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Despite the downvotes -- I think there is a genuine question here. There isn't the need for more laws just enforcement of existing ones. Purporting to represent someone elses business is an egregious infringement of trademark.

Do you think there is a trademark police force that you can call to enforce your trademark? Trademark is a civil matter and realitively pretty expensive to pursue. If you're a restaurant who just laid off half your staff due to COVID, how do you engage a trademark lawyer?

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

#154

Post by paul_f »

kelnos wrote: post #144
s_dev wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the downvotes -- I think there is a genuine question here. There isn't the need for more laws just enforcement of existing ones. Purporting to represent someone elses business is an egregious infringement of trademark.

I would guess that most non-chain restaurants don't own a trademark for their name. It's an expensive process that many likely can't afford.

In the US you are not required to register your trademark in order to enforce it. However, you do get some additional protections. The cost is $225 and it is good for 10 years

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

#155

Post by MisterBastahrd »

s_dev wrote: post #131
ummonk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Despite the downvotes -- I think there is a genuine question here. There isn't the need for more laws just enforcement of existing ones. Purporting to represent someone elses business is an egregious infringement of trademark.

It's not a genuine question.

Companies shouldn't have to manufacture lawsuits every time a hostile third party wants to screw over their customers.

This law is both pro-business AND pro-transparency.

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

#156

Post by lkbm »

XorNot wrote: post #120
mytailorisrich wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Sure, that's bad and that should be banned. But that's not the practice banned. What got banned is me paying someone to pick up my food for me.

I could still run a website that misrepresents the restaurant's telephone number and intercepts your calls. I can take your order (at a mark-up) and relay that order to the restaurant. They'd just make me pick it up.

You could ask why would I use that service. Maybe for the convenience of being able to order from any restaurant from a single website. Maybe I wouldn't. Maybe they give me rewards points. Maybe there's a discount and they just want to harvest my data.

But really. it's irrelevant why/if I'd use the service. The problem is that the law doesn't address the one thing you've pointed out as absolute garbage. It only bans the part that isn't terrible.

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

#157

Post by lr4444lr »

I was first about to say this was bad because it arbitrarily restricts FOIA, but on actual reading of the legislation this makes sense: the delivery apps are deceptively representing themselves to their own customers as agents of the businesses in question.

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

#158

Post by lkbm »

ghaff wrote: post #148
ozim wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if would like to have a honest delivery service that is not faking some restaurant, with the new law you will not be able to provide such service. It will be a lot more hassle to pick up something.

All they have to do is get permission from the restaurants.

That's an extra amount of work that keeps new, small players from entering the field. As with a lot of regulation, this is designed in a way that favors large incumbents.

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

#159

Post by MisterBastahrd »

ghaff wrote: post #128
caf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a form of passing-off, which has long been regarded as worthy of proscription.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but companies (and individuals) pass off things all the time. Shipping is perhaps the most obvious example. If I'm an eBay seller and ship something to you, once I give you a tracking number, it's mostly between you and UPS. (Unless, e.g., an item was improperly packed and UPS won't honor a claim, etc.)

That isn't the case with these delivery services.

If ANYTHING is wrong with your order, they will refer you to the business that cooked the food unless you blow them up on the phone.

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

#160

Post by lkbm »

ratww wrote: post #14
roenxi wrote: post #9

This is a silly law. If someone feels like sending a courier to buy take away then that should be legal.

The problem is not sending a courier. You can use Apps to send someone there without a problem. The problem is them impersonating the restaurant and giving customers the impression that the restaurant is offering the delivery service themselves.

Sure would be nice if the law mentioned something about impersonating the restaurant rather than merely adding restrictions on who can be a courier.
Post reply on HN