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

391–400 of 663 posts

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

#391

Post by tshaddox »

anticristi wrote: post #389
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…

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.

I think this is just a practical matter: the legal system is not as accessible as you might hope it is.

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

#392

Post by listenallyall »

chongli wrote: post #249
listenallyall wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful there... Apple (or any manufacturer) could say the same thing about Ebay. Any sports team or band could say it about Stubhub. Nike could say it about StockX.

I think we can carve out an exception specifically for food and food services. Why? Because of the extremely limited shelf life of hot food. That’s what sets it apart from your other examples.

Your "why" is totally arbitrary. Shelf life? Why not dollars? Apple could say it should receive extra protection because it loses 1000+ dollars every time an unauthorized MacBook Pro or iPhone 12 is sold outside of the channels that it controls. (I don't believe that is entirely true, but it's how Apple would argue it) Whereas unauthorized food deliveries are dealing in the tens of dollars, and further, the restaurant is never totally cut out of the loop, since previously-consumed food can't be resold.

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

#393

Post by cleak »

CydeWeys wrote: post #372
cleak wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m confused. How is GrubHub getting a 30% commission out of restaurants that don’t actively partner with them?

They inflate menu prices and add additional service and delivery fees. You end up spending $50 on a meal that should be $30, and if you were shopping by amount of money spent (as many people are) then the net result is $30 going to the restaurant instead of all $50 you were willing to spend.

Sure, but that’s not actually a commission from the restaurant. The restaurant earns the same amount regardless of if it was true takeout or GrubHub (for folks that haven’t opted in to being partners).

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

#394

Post by r00fus »

rattray wrote: post #311
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.…

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 – w…

What’s preventing them from doing this today?

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

#395

Post by jakelazaroff »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #314
jakelazaroff wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 num…

You’re phrasing it as if requiring all food delivery platforms to get permission from restaurants is an unintended side effect, but again, it’s the entire point of the law.

As to the problem this solves, there are plenty of links on HN alone detailing the harm that these delivery platforms have done to consumers and restaurants both.

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

#397

Post by analog31 »

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.…

I realize you're not suggesting this, but it unnerves me that the way to deal with a weak link in a business is to commandeer that business and blow it out of the water. That's the whole "disruption" culture. All it shows is that a weak business can be destroyed, not that a strong one can be built up.

For a restaurant to work, those basic online things have to be coupled to the production and delivery subsystems. The whole machine has to work. This can only be tested by building a working restaurant.

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

#398

Post by dheera »

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…

Not to mention the delivery apps dishonestly jack up listed prices, as seen on these 2 screenshots taken within the same hour: https://i.imgur.com/2HVXhvZ.png

Then they have the guts to charge: - delivery fees ON TOP of that - then a service fee (WTF? you just charged for delivery service) - then a CA driver benefits of exactly $2.00 (why is it an exact whole number? is every cent of that going toward health insurance?) - small order fee - rush hour fee ...

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

#399

Post by grogenaut »

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…

Fried chicken delivers great if you leave the box open so it can vent. I tell the bar by my house this every order. The paper boxes that are standard for fried chicken are terrible for it. They work for fast food chains because it goes under the hot light to steam out for 5 minutes before going in the box. Fryer to box immediately makes a literal sauna.

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

#400

Post by jimktrains2 »

listenallyall wrote: post #385
jimktrains2 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 R…

My point is that amazon makes it difficult to see who exactly youre buying from and to know that you're getting it from that seller under many circumstances.

Also, there is the first sale doctrine, so they most likely do not need to be "authorized" to sell by Rolex unless you can only purchase a rolex by signing away the roght of first sale. (I'm not sure that's possible to do and am sure it's come up with Tesla, but haven't looked for any relevant cases.) (Whether or not you trust that seller enough to give them that kind of money is a separate issue; I do not.)

This isn't about these companies reselling food, its about them acting as an agent of the restaurant when they are not. They're also not selling me a "cheese pizza" for delivery and giving me one from a local place, they're selling me "company X's cheese pizza" for delivery, when Company X may not want their pizza delivered and has no knowledge of their listing by this company acting as their agent.

Post reply on HN