California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by save_ferris » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #189

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…

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.…

> 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.

Isn't part of being a successful business knowing where to put your energy as a business owner? You're saying that restaurants don't necessarily have the ability to make the best decisions for their business, therefore they should be able to opt-out and not opt-in. The flip side of this argument is that these apps can cause undeserved damage to a restaurant's reputation. How do you know what's best for restaurants?

You're arguing that the onus should be on the restaurant to opt out whenever a delivery platform causes problems, but the onus should be on the delivery platforms to create a product that restaurants, not just consumers, want to use.

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

#222

Post by mrweasel » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

ljm wrote: post #24

dogma1138 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they made a profit off this?

Doordash priced the pizza at $16, but the pizza place charged $24. Presumably a 'growth hack' to get more users. The pizza place, seeing the difference, bought pizzas for $16 and received $24 from Door Dash, so for each purchase they were $8 better off. They also ordered plain pizza dough in larger quantities, for more profit. Presumably because they didn't have to actually make the full pizza.

How would is that ever going to work long term? Most pizza places I frequent offer free delivery, or very cheap delivery once you get pizza for two people. The “growth hack” will never work when you compete with your supplier.

Even if this was somehow going to work, once Doordash has pushed others out of the market, then they would need to raise the price significantly, pushing many to just do pickup themselfs.

More suprising, to me, is that it was ever legal to list resturants without and opt in.

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

#223

Post by umeshunni » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

DGAP wrote: post #190

HN is so strangely anti tech and anti startup at this point. I'm not sure exactly who's on the platform at this point. Unemployed OSS devs bitter that everyone else in the valley is making more money than them?

I find it especially true early in the US day, perhaps because the audience then is probably bitter Europeans?

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

#224

Post by Frost1x » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #130

ummonk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because most restaurant owners want to be in the business of running a restaurant, not litigating some out-of-state entities with billion-dollar warchests. Doing the former is working two full-time jobs, as is.

People tend to forget how critical resources are in our country to rights. You often need time, money, expertise, etc. to enter legal battles and if the costs of those resources outweigh the benefits, you often allow your legal rights to be infringed. Pursuit of some rights are cost prohibitive because everything in the US is so tightly tied to finances.

Many of your rights in the US are directly tied to your financial resources, not only in the sense that you have the resources to litigate or absorb failed litigation but even in the sense that those with massive financial resources essentially buy their own rights through legislation.

Let's not pretend the justice system doesn't have underlying flaws that allow justice to skew one way or another from money alone because it does. If you're on trial for a serious offense, you're probably not going to use a public appointed attorney if you can avoid it because we know how the legal system works and how financial incentives will attract better legal representation in the private sector than those for public appointment.

This idealized and fictionalized system where I can walk into a court of law and defend myself or use a public appointed counsel and 'win' as long as I've done nothing illegal or unjust is a laughable joke for many legal battles, especially those of more significance.

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

#225

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #146

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.

I don't think it is anyway unreasonable for such service to come to agreement with the restaurant. And absolutely beneficial for both parties.

The question is whether it should be required.

If a restaurant welcomes takeaway orders then whether you order and collect in person or hire someone to do it on your behalf is irrelevant.

That's why I think this bill is ill-thought-out.

If there are shady practices taking place then they should be dealt with with existing legislation and, if needed, with new legislation specifically targeting these practices. Instead, I suspect this will only restrict services and competition, which ultimately won't be beneficial for consumers and restaurants alike.

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

#226

Post by jimmaswell » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

jiofih wrote: post #214

jimmaswell wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no local delivery service can compete with a few million in VC funding A simple ordering form on the restaurant's own website always gets preference from me and seems to usually end up being the first result on Google/Google Maps.

No, part of the problem here is that the big delivery company will always win in SEO.

It doesn't in my experience. Google Five Guys near you, the actual first result ignoring ads will almost certainly be their website or even its order form. Same for every local restaurant with an order form I've tried it on.

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

#227

Post by sumthinprofound » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

Lucasoato wrote: post #40

throwawaysea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the suggestion. Why shouldn't a courier service be allowed to list a business to get something from. That's like saying "people can't use mapping services". This doesn't feel like exploitation to me but maybe I don't understand your position fully.

Well, it should be clear that the restaurant has nothing to do with the delivery service. You shouldn't be able to exploit the restaurant brand, logo and reputation without their consent, otherwise they wouldn't have any mean to protect themselves from bad reviews that would damage their image even in other platforms.

This happened to a friend of mine who is a restaurant owner. One day he gets a call for take out, for "Jeff" lets say $60. A DoorDash courier shows up (nothing indicating they are from DoorDash, restaurant assumes this is the customer) and attempts to pay with a credit card. Credit card comes back declined. Courier mentions he's going to step outside to get the issue resolved and will be right back. Half an hour goes by, another call comes in for the exact same order, $60. Another courier comes in, acts like he placed the order, tries to pay with a similar looking credit card, gets declined. 2nd courier leaves without the food. The owner thinks its some time of scam. When the third exact same order comes in via phone, the owner starts asking questions. All three were for the same DoorDash customer, all called in on the phone by DoorDash assuming the identity of the customer who placed the order via the DoorDash website using a menu that DoorDash just found online and posted on their website. It was an outdated menu with outdated prices. Apparently DoorDash would load their credit cards with the exact amount for the purchase (based on outdated prices) so both couriers cards were declined for the purchases. Meanwhile, the actual customer is waiting over an hour and a half for their order to be delivered and the restaurant owner has to eat 2 $60 sales because the food is no longer presentable. Owner was never contacted in advance by DoorDash regarding any business relationship, they just found a menu and included it on their site. Ultimately I believe they covered the cost of their screwup, and the restaurant owner required they pay over the phone when calling in the order before any food was made. I would absolutely consider this exploiting the restaurant brand and reputation without consent.

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

#228

Post by m3kw9 » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

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…

If my resturant didn’t sign up for a middle man, don’t force yourself in between. That seems reasonable

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

#229

Post by alisonkisk » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

RHSeeger wrote: post #181

powerapple wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is how to allow the former while preventing the latter, in a way that is reasonable for small businesses.

Just prosecute the fraudulent misrepresentation of the restaurant.

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

#230

Post by SamoyedFurFluff » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #189

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…

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.…

> Not to mention, of course, any new entrants! This law will make it much harder to compete with "the next Doordash".

Well of course the law will make it much harder to compete to be the next predatory, deceitful company that pretends to be small businesses! That’s the whole point of this law. Some business practices are unethical and relying on them to grow should be made illegal.