Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#51

Post by shay_ker » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #48

shay_ker wrote: post #29

To be honest, not a great look from Matt. It's entirely possible that a lot of this was a misunderstanding, since microsites is literally a product feature that GrubHub sales folks use to sell to restaurant owners (among several, several other features that GrubHub provides). One could imagine that this was mainly a communication error, and it could've been fixed by updating GrubHub's sales processes. But Matt saying…

Agreed. Blaming the restaurants is an absolutely horrendous political play. They don't need GrubHub. There are many other operators that fill a similar niche. Accepting responsibility for the communication error (if we can call it that) is the best way to keep a positive sentiment with restaurant owners. Blaming the restaurant owners sends a message here -- GrubHub feels they have the upper hand by pointing to the le…

I mostly agree w/ you!

> They don't need GrubHub

This part I disagree :-) A lot of restaurants depend on GrubHub for their livelihoods.

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#52

Post by JMTQp8lwXL » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

shay_ker wrote: post #51

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Blaming the restaurants is an absolutely horrendous political play. They don't need GrubHub. There are many other operators that fill a similar niche. Accepting responsibility for the communication error (if we can call it that) is the best way to keep a positive sentiment with restaurant owners. Blaming the restaurant owners sends a message here -- GrubHub feels they have the upper hand by pointing to the le…

I mostly agree w/ you! > They don't need GrubHub This part I disagree :-) A lot of restaurants depend on GrubHub for their livelihoods.

If you have a really good product, you'd probably survive without GrubHub. But yes, with the advent of these apps (and the decline of going-to-eat-at-the-restaurant experience), we are seeing the commoditization of what's for dinner. It's a tough place to be, with thin margins. But there still are other platforms.

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#53

Post by Traster » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #14

Traster wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a crazy idea - they could literally have just e-mailed grubhub asking "Hey, I'm reading through the contract you sent me, could you elaborate on clause X"

Would they have responded? I can't think of a single time when I had any chance to negotiate a TOS. Besides, even if they changed the onboarding process into an old-style contract negotiation, constantly having to deal with the devil, weeding out his sly contractual tricks, is a cost that can add up in terms of stress and man-hours. Most people would rather just choose business partners that aren't trying to trick th…

We're not talking about negotiating, not at all. You can absoluutely ask them what they mean by a clause and then chose not to sign. I find it kind of funny that people in this comment thread seem to think that Grubhub is something unique as if Uber hasn't been pushing their drivers into poverty for years now. Yes, the terms of the contract are likely to be onerous, that's kind of what these rent-seeking business models are all about.

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#54

Post by floatingatoll » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 11:17 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #35

floatingatoll wrote: post #15

GrubHub says that restaurants have it wrong by citing fine print. Restaurants want first right of refusal over the use of their brand, not default opt-in by a third party buried in legalspeak. GrubHub is trying to reframe this issue in legalistic terms, to distract from their failure to collect explicit opt-ins from every restaurant they’ve used in this manner. It’s unfortunate that the headline enables that change i…

The article says they turned over the domain to the restaurant on their request. Also it sounds like this is not just fine print; they advertise this service as part of their offering to businesses. Finally, if you are running a business, you cannot plead ignorance on the fine print. You need to read contracts that you sign, or pay a professional to do so.

The issue here is not "were they authorized to do this?". They were. The issue here is that their actions indicate that they cannot be trusted.

Do they require the business owner check a box "Yes" or "No" and initial next to the clause where the business owner authorizes GrubHub to operate their brand without further consent? No, they don't. That they do not implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub.

That they refuse to notify business owners when they register a domain using their brand implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub.

That their response summarizes as "you signed a multi-page contract that permitted us to do this without notification to you when we do, stop whining about it" implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub.

This is why they are so desperate to shift the framing of the argument from "GrubHub broke trust" to "GrubHub was legally authorized to act this way". They aren't willing to change their behavior, and so instead they simply try to reframe the news with a press statement.

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#55

Post by loco5niner » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 11:23 PM UTC

JasonFruit wrote: post #3

Short form: the restaurants didn't read the TOS, and they have been treated with more consideration than that document requires. GrubHub has done nothing wrong, and even went out of its way to do the right thing.

... according to GrubHub

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#56

Post by shay_ker » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #52

shay_ker wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree w/ you! > They don't need GrubHub This part I disagree :-) A lot of restaurants depend on GrubHub for their livelihoods.

If you have a really good product, you'd probably survive without GrubHub. But yes, with the advent of these apps (and the decline of going-to-eat-at-the-restaurant experience), we are seeing the commoditization of what's for dinner. It's a tough place to be, with thin margins. But there still are other platforms.

c'est la vie

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#57

Post by Bluestrike2 » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 12:06 AM UTC

isoskeles wrote: post #21

jedimastert wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go and ask the nearest 10 local-business restaurant owners what the sentence: > “may create, maintain and operate a microsite (“MS”) and obtain the URL for such MS on restaurant’s behalf.” means. I can guarantee most of them will have no idea what that means. Even if they knew what a "microsite" was, that could mean so many different things anyways. And before you say "then they should have asked a lawyer," 1) yes, b…

Ignorance isn't a real excuse here, definitely not enough to make me take sides between two businesses.

It's not about ignorance. Ambiguous contracts are bad--and risky--for both parties, period. Worse, the relevant section from GrubHub's TOS appears to be written in a manner that purposely maximizes that ambiguity[0] to the company's advantage. That's an issue that people can absolutely take issue with.

Subsection (a) combines two distinct provisions in a really messy way. First, GrubHub agrees to enable its users to order food from its "ordering system/advertising service" on its website, associated app(s), and any of its affiliated web or mobile properties. Second, you have the separate provision stating that GH "may create, maintain and operate" a "microsite." These are distinct, but combining them helps give the impression that they're related.

The agreement doesn't define what a microsite. You could plausibly argue that the restaurant's page on their website qualifies as a microsite. For that matter, it doesn't define what constitutes a URL in this context, and using the term "URL" instead of "domain" seems like a willful effort at obfuscation. "Registering a domain" is a specific act with a common understanding; "obtaining a URL" can mean literally anything, including "registering a domain." They're purposely using a broader term--that they don't define for the contract--in lieu of a more specific one that's also commonly understood.

Finally, GrubHub operates the "microsite...on Restaurant's behalf." Could this create an agency relationship between a principal (the restaurant) and its agent (GrubHub)? What authority is conferred and what duties are owed? Or does the relationship something less? If the relationship is terminated, because GrubHub "[obtained] the URL...on Restaurant's behalf," will the domain name that was registered be transferred to the restaurant? Literally none of this is stated.

If you read the original article[1] about the practice, there's an added wrinkle. GrubHub gets to charge a higher commission on orders originating from their marketing services. If the order is referred via the restaurant's website, the commission is lower. Put simply, it's to GrubHub's benefit, and the restaurant's detriment, to try and promote the "microsite" over the restaurant's real website in search listings (whether they do or not, I don't know; that hasn't been reported on). They also list phone numbers on the microsites that aren't for the restaurant, but instead, for GrubHub's own services. GrubHub gets its commission, rather than being cut out of the loop. One could mount a defense for that (legally; ethically, there are...some issues with it) when it's done in the GrubHub apps; it's a bit stickier of an issue when it's done on a "microsite" masquerading as the restaurant's site and operated "on its behalf." As a side note, they've been sued for charging restaurants for calls that didn't result in orders, but that's a separate, albeit related, issue.

That would appear to go well beyond even the most expansive definition of operating a microsite. Even if you agree in principle to the idea, the poorly worded agreement means that both parties are likely to have very different understandings of what a microsite is and how it will be instituted.

0. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20680000/grubhub-seamless-...

1. https://newfoodeconomy.org/grubhub-domain-purchases-thousand...

2. https://thetakeout.com/grubhub-lawsuit-restaurants-phone-cal...

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#58

Post by DougN7 » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 12:50 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #36

Stratoscope wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment... You're a mom and pop restaurant owner. Maybe new to the country. You put all your savings into this. Now you're making your delicious family recipes and people are enjoying them. And paying you! And hopefully coming back for more. You're barely making ends meet, but you hope the business will grow from word of mouth. Now a delivery service comes along. You know you…

So you need the business, don't have time to get into the details, have a company that takes care of those details for you, brings you an additional volume of orders that you seek, takes the commission they earned and you agreed to, and turns over the domain upon demand. It sounds like a nearly ideal business arrangement to me. I'd be far more troubled about the burying of positive reviews for people who refused to p…

Unless the customers would have come to your site directly and maybe visited your restaurant. This smells a lot like affiliate code stuffing that some shady websites and toolbars do.

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#59

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 2:04 AM UTC

tdhoot wrote: post #41

criddell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the human beings don't read the contacts they sign, they won't be owning a business for long. That's bullshit and you know it. They may be naive thinking an internet company like Grub Hub will act decently, but that doesn't make the restaurant operators wrong. It's too bad software developers and startup people don't have to go through a course on ethics to gain certification like professional engineers do.

You mean it's too bad people aren't forced to feel the same way about issues as you do.

[deleted]

Re: Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong

#60

Post by criddell » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 2:05 AM UTC

tdhoot wrote: post #41

criddell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the human beings don't read the contacts they sign, they won't be owning a business for long. That's bullshit and you know it. They may be naive thinking an internet company like Grub Hub will act decently, but that doesn't make the restaurant operators wrong. It's too bad software developers and startup people don't have to go through a course on ethics to gain certification like professional engineers do.

You mean it's too bad people aren't forced to feel the same way about issues as you do.

All GrubHub had to do to make this totally acceptable to all is have the restaurant owners explicitly opt-in before creating a microsite.