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

311–320 of 663 posts

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

#311

Post by rattray »

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.…

Now that I think about it, I think this law could also hurt competition even amongst established players, allowing them to squeeze restaurants even harder.

Imagine platforms A, B, and C. Platform A approaches Daisy's Cafe offering an amazing deal on a delivery partnership, as long as the Cafe agrees not to use any other delivery companies. Daisy asks around and hears great things about Platform A, so she says yes – what a win!

Months later, the quality of Platform A starts going way down – food is delivered to the wrong addresses, delivered cold, etc. All of the restaurants in Daisy's area also deliver with Platform A, so the local customers don't use other platforms – she's stuck. If she switches, she'll lose almost all her delivery traffic overnight.

Now imagine if Platform C did delivery for her without an agreement signed. Daisy isn't breaking the agreement with Platform A when customers order through Platform C! She'll still lose business when she stops working with Platform A, but not as much, so it's an easier choice to make.

In this scenario, predatory platforms are more likely to squeeze restaurants if agreements must be signed, because exclusivity can be enforced.

Of course, the simple patch here is to disallow exclusive delivery platform contracts, but I don't see that in this bill.

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

#312

Post by michaelt »

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.)

"Passing off" in this context doesn't mean something being passed to another party, like a sportsball player making a pass.

Rather, it's a common law term for selling an item while misrepresenting its origin [1] - for example, if an ebay seller claims to sell real rolexes and sends out fake rolexes, they have 'passed off' the fakes as real. This can happen even in the absence of registered trademarks.

Of course, most of the historical examples are of copycat products - but the definitions used on Wikipedia sound like it might cover misrepresenting restaurant partnerships - particularly if the restaurant's reputation is besmirched by inept deliveries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

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

#313

Post by wpietri »

jimmaswell wrote: post #196
mysterydip wrote: post #108

Earlier 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.

> The smart thing to do is krep taking

I think the smart thing to do is to trust that people who have spent years doing a thing have more insight into the topic than a random internet forum participant.

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

#314

Post by mytailorisrich »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #278
mytailorisrich wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's going to setup a food pickup business in 2021 without being an online business? "please fax your order and card details"? This bill does not require restaurants' permission if you're not an online business, that's true, but in practice that's not really any use to avoid having to get permission.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. The entire point of this law is to make online delivery platforms get permission from restaurants before taking orders on their behalf.

Everyone is an online business in 2021. This bill in effect requires all food order and pickup businesses to get permission from restaurants.

Clearly this looks attractive to many commenters but it won't solve any of the problems, real or not, and will only raise barriers to entry and entrench incumbents without providing benefits to consumers or restaurants (apart from allowing restaurants to seriously limit the number of customers, which is their right and some do wish to do that)

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

#315

Post by smarx007 »

I think it would have been much better to outlaw misrepresentation and advertising without prior agreement (ie the pizza place that did not agree to partnership should only pop up in the search results if the user searches for it) and there should be a warning mandated like "Startup Inc is not affiliated with the Moms and Pops Pizza. If you proceed, we will place your order by calling PHONE_NUMBER and pick up your order from ADDRESS". It should still be legal for the end users to have a service do chores for them including picking up food but only if there is no confusion on the side of the user what is happening here (incl. the fact the pizza may get cold through a no fault of Moms and Pops Pizza).

Edit: oh, the law would also outlaw food picking apps from delivering from Walmart too ("The code defines food facility [...] as an operation that stores, [...] or otherwise provides food [...] at the retail level.")

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

#316

Post by ashtonkem »

wpietri wrote: post #309
ghaff wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> some consumers will still tend to blame Sally's Piping Hot Burgers when their burger arrives soggy and cold A friend who manages an excellent restaurant says that this is indeed a problem. One of their signature dishes is fried chicken, and it is glorious. They optimize everything about the meal with the understanding that it's 15-30 seconds from the kitchen to the table. But those are the wrong choices for 15-30 m…

I’m incredibly perplexed why people do this. Even pre pandemic it was patently obvious to anyone who paid attention that certain foods just don’t deliver well. Before the internet became a thing, the only places that regularly offered delivery were pizza joints and Chinese food, because both of those survive delivery well! I ordered delivery burgers once, from a restaurant close by, and learned my lesson that burgers are best enjoyed immediately and not 10 minutes later. Why should I blame the restaurant for that?

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

#317

Post by Ericson2314 »

blargathon wrote: post #306

I wonder what the secondary consequences will be. The gig worker law had some nasty secondary consequences for musicians and such. These regulations really seem to hurt the little guys. That said, the law is short and doesn't even go to deeply into what an "agreement" is. So maybe it's ok?

well, the gig worker law never got to do it's intended thing, first cause the stays, then cause prop 22, so now it should just be repealed. Had it, at least the distortions for musicians that are also Uber drivers would have been the same.

I would by the other's argument that this is about preventing misrepresentation. In fact, perhaps it should have already be covered by trademark protections anyways.

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

#318

Post by smarx007 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #199
swyx wrote: post #15

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…

> growth hacks Tech speak for: breaking the law. But hey, money, so who cares if we ruin a bunch of lives and make the world a worse place? Isn't that what technology is all about?

I think "growth hacks" are "anything goes short of breaking the law".

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

#319

Post by refulgentis »

loceng wrote: post #296
refulgentis wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been here 11 years, things have oddly gone off a cliff in the comments over the past 6 months - year: if you're not agreeing with the first-order conclusion, you're down-voted through the floor. sorry about that :/

And any attempt to discuss the voting mechanism to require more qualitative responses instead of a quick dopamine hit for clicking a single object, one needs to tread carefully - a rule that artificially oppresses conversation on the topic - so how important of an issue it is will be skewed due to the threat of being silenced.

Lol I'm at -7 now, cheers my friend
Post reply on HN