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

511–520 of 663 posts

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

#511

Post by ip26 »

smarx007 wrote: post #354
hedora wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Misrepresenting the relationship with the restaurants is the problem, not the existence of the delivery service. As written, the bill seems so poorly thought out that I wonder if the authors has some alternate motive. Regulatory capture, maybe? Also, this doesn’t ban setting up fake websites to take orders, and then forwarding them to hapless restaurant owners. Honestly, just enforcing existing trademark law…

I think "shall not arrange for the delivery of an order" in § 22599 pretty much bans taking orders. But yes, it does not ban setting up fake websites, unfortunately. So a food delivery service can still put up a fake website only to tell a user on a landing page "we are sorry, Moms and Pops pizza does not take orders online, how about a slice of Jack and Jill's pizza instead?"

That's just fraud though, if they are representing themselves as Moms and Pops

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

#512

Post by btilly »

danans wrote: post #489
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…

Who is old enough to remember the McDLT? https://youtu.be/UTSdUOC8Kac

I am.

And it was dropped because when McDonalds stopped using styrofoam they couldn't make it work any more.

There is an irony in that. We went from a society that uses styrofoam to paper cups. Never mind that styrofoam is one of the most easily recycled substances we have, while the wax on paper cups makes them destined for the landfill.

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

#513

Post by bobthepanda »

chrisseaton wrote: post #500
bobthepanda wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most small restaurants fail within a year of opening. It’s a very tough business. Some app claiming that you are partnering with them for delivery when that is not the case is not necessarily positive for a business given potential reputational risk.

> Most small restaurants fail within a year of opening. It’s a very tough business. Why is that? Seems straightforward - exchange food for money. Why's that so difficult to make work?

1. there's lots of competition. restaurants are an extremely common business in existence and to start.

2. product market fit. you think your cooking is good. Do other people think your cooking is good? Do other people think your cooking is worth coming back for in a week, a month, or a year? You can try and do trendy things in food but these trends come and go quickly.

3. Rent and capital costs. It is expensive to fit a space for a kitchen, so you probably took a loan for that. Landlords are trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of you. There may be cheaper options than a leased space like a food truck or a sidewalk stand, but if they're even legal where you are the permits aren't cheap and there's usually a long waitlist. And better locations with more foot traffic cost more money.

4. Labor & management. Most people do not have experience running a restaurant's operations, which have to be tightly managed to both keep expenses down and keep service at decent levels. Bad service will turn customers away for good and bad word of mouth can snowball.

5. Margin. The tendency for new restauranteurs is that they underestimate their expenses and how much margin they need to be making. Prices need to be right for the market you're trying to serve, but you also need to not scare away too many customers. What pencils out in a home kitchen is not necessarily what pencils out in a restaurant.

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

#514

Post by WalterBright »

alexander-litty wrote: post #136
aquadrop wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the law should be about making it clear status of the restaurant. Just forbidding everything seems like wide sweep action that can stifle a lot of other good/innovative business models. Not something government should do.

It is far more unpredictable to litigate based on intent and public perception. If an app displays a phone number but doesn’t say it belongs to the restaurant, is that making the current partnership clear or unclear? It’s a question left to precedent, which means there is a chance the legislation would not have teeth. Instead of throwing restaurant owners into that mess, the new law we have today forbids a specific s…

All the law has to say is that the delivery service must note next to their restaurant advertisement that they are not affiliated with or an agent of that restaurant.

This would be a simple provable thing.

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

#515

Post by rrjjww »

rainbowzootsuit wrote: post #254
Slartie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had to produce something that could legally be called a pizza to at least fulfill the purchase contract with DoorDash and avoid making themselves legally liable. But what would probably have worked would be to pull this off with two restaurants, each ordering pizzas from the other, with them sending the same physical pizzas around all the time. Cold and old pizza is still legally a pizza, just a bad one.

That reminds me of the Raines sandwich. "Minimum viable sandwich" https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/raines-sandwich So this is "Minimum viable pizza"

Before clicking on this I thought it was going to be about Cuomo's order in this summer that all restaurants offering drinks had to be served with food. I went to at least a couple outside bars that were serving half a piece of white bread with a slice of American cheese on it for your "meal"

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

#516

Post by kibibyte »

btilly wrote: post #512
danans wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is old enough to remember the McDLT? https://youtu.be/UTSdUOC8Kac

I am. And it was dropped because when McDonalds stopped using styrofoam they couldn't make it work any more. There is an irony in that. We went from a society that uses styrofoam to paper cups. Never mind that styrofoam is one of the most easily recycled substances we have, while the wax on paper cups makes them destined for the landfill.

> styrofoam is one of the most easily recycled substances

Is that actually true? I've always heard to put styrofoam in trash rather than recycling.

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

#517

Post by loceng »

ScoobleDoodle wrote: post #308
loceng wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're just not accepting in the statement you wrote what you claim it means is incorrect - you're now trying to double down that it's not clear but it is clear, you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely as your argument point but through extrapolation it's not necessary, assuming you're able to/have learned how to extrapolate. You really want everyone everywhere on the internet to spell out the…

“Partner” implies agreed upon consent. The assumption from the grub hub text is that all restaurants on their platform are “partners” and have therefore consented. The two possible omissions are: 1) “partners” does not actually mean consent. 2) They have other restaurants on their platform who are not “partners”, but they have the largest “partner” network even without those unconsenting restaurants. Both are deceitf…

No, you're making an assumption and misinterpreting the sentence as well - they're not saying all restaurants on their platform in the statement we're referencing are partners.

I agree them saying there are partners doesn't define what that means, nor if they said they "work with restaurants." That still doesn't mean it's valid to believe assumptions are truth when you don't know the answer.

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

#518

Post by Dylan16807 »

imtringued wrote: post #460
Dylan16807 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is lying... a company pretending to be another company or a representative of another company... when they are not. This law affects much more than that.

It doesn't because you can always ask for permission.

Forcing companies to ask for permission changes a lot. In general, it's usually bad for market competition.

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

#520

Post by triceratops »

btilly wrote: post #512
danans wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is old enough to remember the McDLT? https://youtu.be/UTSdUOC8Kac

I am. And it was dropped because when McDonalds stopped using styrofoam they couldn't make it work any more. There is an irony in that. We went from a society that uses styrofoam to paper cups. Never mind that styrofoam is one of the most easily recycled substances we have, while the wax on paper cups makes them destined for the landfill.

We can recycle styrofoam? This is news to me.

You can't recycle wax paper cups. But they'll either break down in the landfill, which is fine. Or they won't, which is a form of carbon capture, which is also fine. You can also burn it for energy.

Post reply on HN