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

#351

Post by drzaiusapelord » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

jjice wrote: post #346

I'm not very familiar with delivery apps or how they work, but they were allowed to do this before? How would that ordering process work? Would someone make an order and then the courier call it in and then pick it up?

Yep! They just call it in and someone picks it up. I think even if its a loss, its a form of intimidation. "See, we're the gatekeeper to your customers now, so you better sign with us so we get 20-30% of your revenue. Also we'll list your menu in our app with $1 added per item that we pocket on top of that and charge the customer a service fee on top of that."

Its an ugly business model.

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

#352

Post by lostcolony » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

cforrester wrote: post #330

ashtonkem wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's a matter of expectation more than anything. Someone who orders food from a restaurant might expect that the restaurant has recipes designed for delivery. I wouldn't expect a top quality restaurant burger when I order delivery, but I'd still be disappointed if it were a soggy mess instead of the 5-8/10 I've come to expect from decent delivery options.

I think it IS a matter of expectation, yes.

If I go and pick up something that doesn't sit around at room temperature well (let's say a milkshake), and drive 20 minutes home before eating it, I'm not going to ding the restaurant for the fact it's melted.

If, however, milkshakes are offered for takeout (reasonable), but then a third delivery party gets involved and starts offering them for delivery, anyone ordering it will have the impression of "I ordered a milkshake. It arrived to my hand melted! 1-star, bad!" Since they clearly aren't thinking enough to -not order the milkshake in the first place-.

Milkshake is an extreme example to demonstrate the point, but applies to anything that doesn't sit well (previously mentioned burger included), with the added trouble that customers are less likely to know what will sit well.

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

#353

Post by granzymes » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

nrmitchi wrote: post #334

This feels kind of like some sort of regulatory capture by DoorDash, etc now that they are big enough. Is there any way that this wouldn’t stifle any new competition?

This was my thought too. This law is a huge barrier to entry for any new delivery apps in California.

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

#354

Post by smarx007 » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #335

smarx007 wrote: post #315

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 or…

Agreed. Misrepresenting the relationship with the restaurants is the problem, not the existence of the delivery service. As written, the bill seems so poorly thought out that I wonder if the authors has some alternate motive. Regulatory capture, maybe? Also, this doesn’t ban setting up fake websites to take orders, and then forwarding them to hapless restaurant owners. Honestly, just enforcing existing trademark law…

I think "shall not arrange for the delivery of an order" in § 22599 pretty much bans taking orders.

But yes, it does not ban setting up fake websites, unfortunately. So a food delivery service can still put up a fake website only to tell a user on a landing page "we are sorry, Moms and Pops pizza does not take orders online, how about a slice of Jack and Jill's pizza instead?"

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

#355

Post by zepto » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

ciabattabread wrote: post #252

rattray wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Going straight to opt-in seems like it could hurt some businesses. So, Facebook is indeed right when they say Apple’s opt-in tracking prompt will hurt small businesses?

Can you explain how this has anything to do with tracking?

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

#356

Post by tannerbrockwell » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

This will be overturned based on First Amendment and Free Speech Grounds.

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

#357

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

wolco2 wrote: post #285

newman8r wrote: post #183

Earlier 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…

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 yes…

So your advice is basically to never patronize restaurants? Seems like an awful overreaction to something that almost never happens?

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

#358

Post by swyx » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #304

Ekaros wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On other hand should then the bad behaviour be allowed to continue forever? Isn't something late better than never?

Yes but if you don’t also punish the companies who did the bad thing then you end up just giving them a moat. I’m of two minds about our legal system in this regard. It’s nice that you don’t really ever have to be worried about getting punished for things you did in the past suddenly being declared illegal but in doing so it rewards entities who have no conscience. And large groups of people acting together are quite…

yea right now we are simply incentivizing going after unregulated space as aggressively as possible before laws are written for them. writing regulation after the deed is done tackles symptoms while fueling root cause.

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

#359

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

jfim wrote: post #297

wolco2 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yes…

> using yesterdays soup as a base for today's soup That's not necessarily a bad thing. There is such a thing as a perpetual stew [0] in which a stew is replenished with ingredients over months or even years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_stew

And it's not common at all in today's world, for a reason.

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

#360

Post by daenz » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

tannerbrockwell wrote: post #356

This will be overturned based on First Amendment and Free Speech Grounds.

Maybe, if the headline matched the content. From the bill:

>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.

I don't see anywhere mentioned about not being able to "list" a restaurant. Just that you cannot actually perform the delivery. Presumably, you could still lie and list a restaurant that you don't deliver for.