31–40 of 663 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could still do that without the app listing the restaurants without their permission. There is a clear exploitation happening here, I think it's right to find a way to stop it. We should get better at iterating on policy though, maybe this doesn't work out or stops some other kind of less exploitive business from operating and they need to adjust it.
What is the exploitation exactly?
There was a post a few months go about a pizza place that started getting customers complaining about their food arriving cold and damaged: except they didn't offer delivery. They discovered that a popular search engine was offering free delivery. The story ended with them ordering dozens of pizzas from themselves to themselves and making a nice profit.
https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could still do that without the app listing the restaurants without their permission. There is a clear exploitation happening here, I think it's right to find a way to stop it. We should get better at iterating on policy though, maybe this doesn't work out or stops some other kind of less exploitive business from operating and they need to adjust it.
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.
This is a silly law. If someone feels like sending a courier to buy take away then that should be legal.
My actions have made your service look bad, your customers unhappy and cost you money. You didn't know I was delivering your food!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could still do that without the app listing the restaurants without their permission. There is a clear exploitation happening here, I think it's right to find a way to stop it. We should get better at iterating on policy though, maybe this doesn't work out or stops some other kind of less exploitive business from operating and they need to adjust it.
What is the exploitation exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone else posted the below excerpt of the law that also prohibits couriers (who are not impersonating anyone) unless they have permission from the restaurant. That seems like a ridiculous restriction to me. > 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…
I don't think sending someone to perform a task is the same as taking an order , though. The restaurant is still the one taking the order for the food itself in the case of a courier. Also the law seem to only include "food delivery platforms", which exclude couriers. (Of course, I might be wrong, but it seems that the intent of the law is to stop impersonation, not couriers).
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.
Offering to courrier food from place A to B, including ordering the food from place A, should not be illegal. Pretending to be A to engage in that business is fraud, because you pretended to be A. It's that simple. This law is a giveaway to the companies that have already engaged in fraud.
always entertaining how regulation unintentionally acts to increase barriers to entry for incumbents. in this case closing the barn doors almost a decade after the horse left the stable. you couldn't pay politicians enough for the favors they perform in earnest. edit:to elaborate, the growth hacks of the likes of Doordash and Postmates doing exactly this got them their start, now it will be illegal to compete with th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the intention though, is to stop say a Doordash from listing a restaurant's menu on its (DD's) website and making it seem like the restaurant is consenting to having delivery of its food with whatever margin DD feels like adding on top of it. (Also by the way, shadier practices too, like hijaking/publishing a false restaurant phone number that diverts to DD instead of the restaurant.)
Yes, hence, impersonation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could still do that without the app listing the restaurants without their permission. There is a clear exploitation happening here, I think it's right to find a way to stop it. We should get better at iterating on policy though, maybe this doesn't work out or stops some other kind of less exploitive business from operating and they need to adjust it.
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.
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.