Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just prosecute the fraudulent misrepresentation of the restaurant.
Lawsuits aren't cheap both in terms of time and money.
The state prosecutes crimes.
California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
381–390 of 663 posts
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my resturant didn’t sign up for a middle man, don’t force yourself in between. That seems reasonable
But they're not forcing themselves in between. All the customers you already had are still going directly to you. They're just widening the pool of potential customers.
By lying. In-N-Out is infamous for dealing with this. They sued one of the delivery sites for trademark infringement. “But why?” you might ask. Because customers are dumb sometimes and would blame In-N-Out when their food arrived cold of their milkshakes melted.[a]
Sure, In-N-Out was getting more money, but it was hurting their brand (which caused money loses). They never approved being on the site, but that didn’t stop the site from lying and pretending In-N-Out was a “partner”.
[a]: Think Amazon with the stupid 1-star reviews for being “late” or “shipping box damaged”. It hurts the brand of the product being sold.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#383Normally I am pretty anti- whatever california does. This time I'm super pro it. This is a great way to look out for the little guy getting bullied by the bigger ones. Would love to see 100x more of this.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#384Earlier 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.
Food poisoning has much slower onset than most people think, and, as I understand it, it’s very common to blame the wrong food. I think it would be good to encourage everyone with food poisoning to notify a central authority to collect statistics, but blaming a specific restaurant from a single case is dicey at best. It’s also worth noting that most people expect meat to be the riskiest type of food. In fact, lettuce…
Food poisoning usually takes 10-15 hours from meal to symptoms. That gives you only a couple of meals to consider.
About ten years ago one third of the office (50 people out of 150) called in sick, it was pretty clear which meal and which restaurant was the culprit.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure they do, of course ebay hosts used items but they also promote direct manufacturer-to-customer sales for many products. Stubhub actually does sell plenty of seats that were never otherwise available to the public, further, with their stadium maps and use of team names, etc, plenty of people might assume they are buying tickets via an official or authorized channel. StockX you likely have a point -- but it still…
I would argue that the average person would not consider ebay an official vendor for a brand like Amazon. Ebay is set up to make the seller prominent. (Moreso than amazon does, I would argue.) I haven't used StubHub in a while, but if they have move to being a first party distributor in some cases, i could see some confusion arising for a consumer.
The funny thing is, Amazon is a terrible example, since lots of stuff there is actually being sold by 3rd parties, not by Amazon itself, and not with any authorization from the manufacturer.
example: https://www.amazon.com/Rolex-Datejust-126303-Silver-Bracelet...
would you shell out $13,000 for this watch from "AUTHENTIC WATCHES"? Are they authorized to sell Rolexes? Do they have any "arrangement" with Rolex? Would Rolex honor its warranty after this sale? Is the watch even new?
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#386This 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…
It's also undeniably a good thing for customers as well. Using an unexpected intermediary in a transaction is a terrible experience. If I see a restaurant on GrubHub then I want to know that that restaurant wants orders coming through GrubHub. Otherwise, I'll be much better off calling up the restaurant directly. As it stands, I currently have to use Google Maps as my restaurant portal, using the restaurant's website…
Honestly, I had thought that it was a partnership. For one, only a rather small subset of the restaurants in my area show up on Grubhub. I imagined that outsourcing the delivery function of their business would be a net win.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
After seeing a one-star negative review for a mosquito electric zapper because it didn’t get rid of their roaches problem, nothing people do or say on internet will ever surprise me again.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say you're the restaurant, I'm the delivery guy. I pickup your meals and deliver them to your customers. On the way the meals go cold (or hot) and get damaged. Your customers aren't happy and want their money back. My actions have made your service look bad, your customers unhappy and cost you money. You didn't know I was delivering your food!
Isn't this exactly the kind of thing trademark laws is supposed to cover? I'm pretty sure that if you tried to resell food at scale from a major fast food franchise without proper licensing, you would get sued.
Trademark law could prevent me from pretending to be the restaurant. If they had a defensible trademark and time and money to litigate.
It doesn't really prevent me from acting as a middle man. I'd need to be careful about using their trademarks and making it clear that I'm not connected.
The concept of first sale certainly applies, although health code makes it complex. There's also the concept of the right to refuse service.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#389This 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…
I don't understand why trademarks are insufficient to prevent this. Why didn't restaurants file a class action lawsuit against food delivery services to stop misusing their names?
I think this law is great, but it kind of legitimises impersonation unless explicitly banned by law.
Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement
#390Reasonable in scope and protection. Unusual for California, but better for everyone involved. Great.