This 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.
California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
201–210 of 663 posts
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#202If a person decides to buy a pizza from X and then sell it to Y, don't they have a right to?
I think the issues is a problem of transparency. I deliver for Postmates and I really think that most of the customers don't really understand that they might be ordering from a restaurant that isn't partnered with Postmates. The knock on effect is that often the menu isn't really correct, so the customer gets their order "wrong" and calls the restaurant to complain.
Even if there's no real impersonation involved, the reality is that a lot of consumers, understandably, are going to sort of lump the food as delivered as something the restaurant has responsibility for. After all, none of us have a lot of patience for companies that take the attitude of "Not our problem. This other company was responsible for that. Take it up with them."
This is especially true here as, historically, restaurants were responsible for their own delivery. To most people, these services are just something that the restaurant contracted out for and is still basically on the hook for.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?
The problem doesn't seem that related to trademarks to me. These app delivery platforms are impersonating companies, not selling their own products under someone else's brand. The food comes from where they claim it did. The issue with impersonation is that customers who got worse experience (cold food, long delivery, etc.) end up blaming the restaurant for it, even though the restaurant had nothing to do with it.
How is trading under the cover of someone else’s mark not a trademark issue? If I’m representing myself as selling “TeMPOral Pizza” for delivery, the fact that I’m actually delivering pizza made at the TeMPOral Pizza Shop isn’t entire cover.
If I opened up a shop in the mall with giant lit white Apple logos, the fact that I sold genuine Apple product inside would not absolve me of trademark infringement.
(Trademark violations are more than just counterfeit items.)
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
That’s not what the law does. It addresses the problem GP pointed out, and it bans the service you’ve described as well. It also doesn’t forbid you from paying someone to pick your food up for you.
Here’s the relevant text:
> 22599. A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had an old roommate try to sue in-n-out after getting severe food poisoning. It actually went to court - the in-n-out attorney completely destroyed him, he was outgunned. They showed receipts for thousands of people who ate there that day and that there weren't any other cases reported. Reporting food poisoning if it ever happens to you (even if minor) could be the difference between someone else being believed of…
>They showed receipts for thousands of people who ate there that day and that there weren't any other cases reported. It makes you wonder: did the lawyer call each one of those thousands of people, did anyone get sick but didn't realize it was the burger, time could be an issue too maybe a few lettuce leaves had listeria on them but it only grew to levels after a certain time and temperature.
If that’s the case and they did not consistently fail at food safety practices, just a one-off, then we can consider it an accident like any other and the restaurant is not culpable.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
This exact thing is happening to one of my favorite local pizza places. Very frustrating for them.
They're frustrated by free advertising and new customers? The smart thing to do is krep taking the business and just put a leaflet in the pizza box/whatever saying ordering directly is cheaper/faster, if that's the case.
Maybe there's more involved than getting "free advertising and new customers". As in, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
This exact thing is happening to one of my favorite local pizza places. Very frustrating for them.
They're frustrated by free advertising and new customers? The smart thing to do is krep taking the business and just put a leaflet in the pizza box/whatever saying ordering directly is cheaper/faster, if that's the case.
Perhaps frustrated that someone is doing business as them using their copyright and trademarks? These companies are basically commiting fraud, and any bad experience reflexts on the restaurant, not the delivery company.
Sometimes the restaurant doesn't know that something is being ordered via another channel and cannot add sufh a slip.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Eh, food delivery is a pretty local business. In fact, if I wanted to compete with these VC-backed companies, I'd probably do something like partner with local restaurants whose food traveled well, come up with some good packaging, etc. Of course, that's not scalable and disruptive.
>food delivery is a pretty local business
?? Food is a pretty local business, but delivery is not. You could say that person delivery is local too, because people mostly transport locally, but e.g. Uber is still global.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
This exact thing is happening to one of my favorite local pizza places. Very frustrating for them.
They're frustrated by free advertising and new customers? The smart thing to do is krep taking the business and just put a leaflet in the pizza box/whatever saying ordering directly is cheaper/faster, if that's the case.
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.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#210Only problem with this is definitions. Why does it need to refer to "online delivery platforms" when it could refer to anybody that poses to deliver the food for you without express permission of the business owner? I mean, if the worry is that the owner should be able to have say in how the food is to be delivered, it should not matter how the actual order was made, whether it was through online platform, by phone,…
It’s trying to avoid rolling in other small scale activity that should be allowed. If I tell my kids’ soccer team that I’ll pick up 15 McDonalds burgers for them, I’ve “arranged for the delivery of an order” under the law’s definition, so I’m in trouble unless the definition of “food delivery platform” exempts me.