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

#421

Post by bobthepanda » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

amerkhalid wrote: post #362

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…

This is fair point but what stops these businesses from refusing to do food pick up. Especially, if they know food won't taste good if not consumed within a few minutes. I rather resturants remove to-go option instead of blaming delivery companies.

This is removing to-go option. There are apps that claim to offer delivery from a restaurant not intending to provide it.

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

#422

Post by scrps » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

I am not sure this will hurt delivery apps as much as restaurants, seems to me like it would compel resturants to enter into contract with delivery services (giving them an upper-hand) else they lose business. Maybe pre-covid that might have been survivable.

Perhaps I am too narrow of a demographic but since covid hit I order pretty heavily from delivery services and I have completely ignored resturants I like simply because they don't offer delivery or are not listed with a delivery service.

Edit: typo

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

#423

Post by cleak » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

dheera wrote: post #398

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 insuranc…

The key issue around all of this is transparency. Itemize costs, be clear how much money goes to each party, and state up front if you’re not affiliated.

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

#424

Post by CivBase » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

wskinner wrote: post #409

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.

By the look of it, this gives restaurants full control over how their product reaches the customer. It basically outlaws competition in the food delivery market, to the obvious benefit of restaurants and incumbents.

There is an obvious problem in how many of the food delivery companies represent the restaurants they deliver from, but this goes way beyond addressing that particular problem.

Glad this is just a CA thing.

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

#425

Post by jMyles » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

baby_wipe wrote: post #326

My understanding is DoorDash started out by listing restaurants without their permission. Now DoorDash has this legislation which will protect them from any new startup who tries to do the same thing. (The assumption being it will be much easier for DoorDash to obtain permission than it would be for a nascent startup.)

First-mover advantage has slowly evolved from being a social and economic head-start to being a declaration of candidacy for the patronage of regulatory capture.

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

#426

Post by ddalex » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #65

If a person decides to buy a pizza from X and then sell it to Y, don't they have a right to?

absolutely; but they can't pretend to be X at all

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

#427

Post by tempsy » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

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…

In n Out has been a notable hold out from delivery apps for this reason.

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

#428

Post by tylersmith » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #130

ummonk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?

Because most restaurant owners want to be in the business of running a restaurant, not litigating some out-of-state entities with billion-dollar warchests. Doing the former is working two full-time jobs, as is.

Them not wanting to handle their own problems is not a reason for the State to subsidize solutions for them.

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

#429

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 7:04 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 ordered delivery burgers once, from a restaurant close by, and learned my lesson that burgers are best enjoyed immediately and not 10 minutes later.

Weird. It takes me notably longer than that to eat a burger in a restaurant, and I never notice any quality problems over that period of time.

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

#430

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #395

mytailorisrich wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consumers clearly don't think that these platforms are doing them any harm considering how popular they are. Consumers like to be able to order from home through an app from a wide range of restaurants.

This is actually the problem restaurants are facing: How to adapt to change technology and consumers habits? A bit like traditional taxis were blown out of the water by Uber.

Restaurants don't have to offer delivery/takeaway, and indeed traditionally they don't (at least in Europe). They'll have to decide how to adapt and that may include focusing on the in premises experience instead of chasing online sales.

But, again, this bill does not solve problems, and may actually be counter-productive as already explained, and you're certainly not giving me an example to the contrary.

As a side note, and something to consider: these platforms are very good for the taxman as they make tax evasion all but impossible (and I suspect that has a financial impact on more restaurants that they wish to admit).