California got this right. Credit where credit is due.
California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
281–290 of 663 posts
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#282This 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…
[deleted]
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Yeah, like I said, restaurants should absolutely have easy and fast recourse against predatory platforms. The heuristic, "but will restaurant owners ask to be delisted because of this?" should be a powerful force for keeping overly aggressive product managers in check. I worry that the bill misses the point that these platforms can also be a free or low-cost source of new business. As a small business owner myself (a…
It’s true that these platforms can also be free or low cost sources of new business. GrubHub et al can still mail/call/etc. them an offer to become a partner, with stickers and a “congratulations we’d love to do business with your business”.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#284Earlier 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…
> you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely
Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by extrapolation. Requiring extrapolation =! clear disclaimer imo. I would in fact expect a clear disclaimer to require no extrapolation, and be so dumbly explained that anyone who can read at at teen level can understand it.)
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment. But you basically have no recourse if you get food poisoning from a restaurant. Unless it’s a mass event, there’s no way for you to prove it was the restaurant, and even if you could prove it, your damages aren’t likely to be enough to sue.
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…
Advice I wish I could give myself. Don't eat out if you can avoid it and if you do go in person, never order in.
In secret someone who cares less about your health than anyone you know prepares hundreds of meals a day and if they don't come in because they are sick they lose money. If they don't try to hide mistakes it will cost them. If they don't save the company money by picking up food off the ground or using yesterdays soup as a base for today's soup they are doing a poor job. There are very few ways a customer can prove these mistakes unless they are visible upon receipt. Poor reviews hidden from the public is the only recourse.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, like I said, restaurants should absolutely have easy and fast recourse against predatory platforms. The heuristic, "but will restaurant owners ask to be delisted because of this?" should be a powerful force for keeping overly aggressive product managers in check. I worry that the bill misses the point that these platforms can also be a free or low-cost source of new business. As a small business owner myself (a…
It’s true that these platforms can also be free or low cost sources of new business. GrubHub et al can still mail/call/etc. them an offer to become a partner, with stickers and a “congratulations we’d love to do business with your business”.
Totally. That's what'll have to happen instead. But it's more expensive (cost to restaurant ultimately goes up) and annoying.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#287HN 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?
Why would we be bitter? Here in Germany for example there is at least one example ( https://www.lieferando.de ) of a takeaway/delivery service that AFAICT operates only on official partnerships with restaurants etc.
Just for the record, I'm not in any way affiliated with them or any other such business apart from ordering through once or twice a few years ago.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#288F that! Last night I wanted w bottle of alcohol for new years celebration. I already had a few drinks so I didn't want to drive. Unfortunately no delivery service had an agreement with any local liquor stores. As long as a delivery service doesn't pose as the store itself, there should be no issues. The laws in this country are a out of control.
I’ve come to just not give my business to restaurants that don’t want to exist in the modern world. It’s a high risk, low margin business. The fact they don’t want to support any type of delivery with these apps shows to me they don’t care about staying in business.
“Support local” goes both ways.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I’m confused. How is GrubHub getting a 30% commission out of restaurants that don’t actively partner with them?
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#290Earlier 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…
These are often termed lies of ommission, where details are left out to make what is said appear to be the full truth, and not just a slice of it. By only stating that they work with partners, they imply that they only work with partners.