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

#401

Post by ianhorn » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #320

How about opt-in for _literally everything_? That's called consent, a concept Silicon Valley doesn't understand.

That’s a good slogan but there needs to be delineation of who is and isn’t involved. It turns out to be the central question. If I buy a book from Amazon and want to sell it on eBay, who needs to opt in? I certainly shouldn’t need your permission as you’re not involved. Is the paper manufacturer involved in me selling the book on eBay? Is the author? The publisher? Amazon? Me taking something I buy on Amazon and selling it on eBay has a pretty direct analogy here (sell what I buy from local pizza co to my app users). Asking for opt in is just a different way to phrase it, unfortunately.

That said, I’m glad for this law. Maybe it’s not perfectly worded but it’s a net good. What the delivery companies were doing was such blatant exploitation of everyone involved and I’m glad to see it go.

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

#402

Post by rattray » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #394

rattray wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm definitely under the impression that exclusivity agreements exist in this industry today. But the fact that some delivery apps list restaurants that haven't signed up with them reduces the power of the exclusivity (since some delivery traffic is coming from these other, "unofficial" apps).

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

#403

Post by listenallyall » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

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.

sorry but at some point it's on the customer. if they are so price-insensitive that they are willing to pay $50 for $30 of food, they are too lazy to cross-reference the price, or shop around, or just go pick it up themselves, then I have no issue with the delivery service milking them for whatever the customer is willing to spend.

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

#404

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #316

wpietri wrote: post #309

Earlier 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…

A couple of times I've been tempted to order from Five Guys with one of the services I have a promo with. But then I remember that said Five Guys is far enough away that I wouldn't want to drive to it and, best case, what I receive is not going to be great. Better to grill it myself.

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

#405

Post by cmckn » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

Lately, I just call the restaurant and do a pickup order. I get the food a lot faster and I don’t end up paying $40 for a $16 pizza. There are some times when delivery is great, maybe I’m sick or have had a couple beers, or don’t have my car; but those times are few and far between (for me). DoorDash and friends have convinced folks that delivery food is great. I think it kind of sucks.

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

#406

Post by grogenaut » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:24 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 know a few people who own top quality restaurants. They spent a shit ton of time figuring out delivery. One in chicago does it for reheat with nice instructions on everything. Like a blue apron style setup. A bbq place just won't sell certain items ever togo. Heck maggianos obviously spent time in their take home setup.

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

#407

Post by asddubs » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #316

wpietri wrote: post #309

Earlier 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…

I've had some ok delivery burgers, but it was the actual burger place doing the delivery

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

#408

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #316

wpietri wrote: post #309

Earlier 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…

Because more people than you think do not understand this and how delivery platforms work (ie. that restaurants do not control them)

If you're a restaurant and some of your dishes do not handle delivery well then you should not sell them as delivery/takeaway but only on premises. Otherwise you'll have to accept that some customers will be unhappy and leave a bad review.

I think this is a learning curve for many restaurants that are not used to this business model. Certainly in Europe it was not usual for restaurants to offer delivery/takeaway, which was only done by some pizzerias for a long time. Now these platforms are booming and the pandemic has made them critical.

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

#409

Post by wskinner » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

Looks like this is from Lorena Gonzalez, the author of the notorious AB5. Like that law, it seems rather too broad. By my reading it would ban a hypothetical app that worked on behalf of customers to deliver orders, even if the app explicitly mentions it is not affiliated with the restaurant or business. This doesn’t seem like a good thing for Californians.

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

#410

Post by CivBase » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

> 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.

That's more than just preventing apps from listing a restaurant. I don't think delivery services should be able to represent restaurants without an agreement like many of them currently do, but I think this goes way too far.

This basically outlaws competition in the food delivery market.

EDIT: A food delivery service essentially buys food from a restaurant, then resells it to the customer. Is there any precedent for outlawing sale of a legal product to a business?