Live data from Hacker News

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

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

521–530 of 663 posts

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

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating and defending a trademark is very expensive. Many restaurants would prefer not to spend this money just to prevent unauthorized listings. They’d rather delegate the responsibility of preventing unauthorized listings to the state attorney who has more resources and expertise.

That's not true. A trademark costs around $300: https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-fee-information Enforcing it is free: you can send your own cease and desist for free. The only time you need a lawyer is if they refuse and you want to sue them. If the court rules in your favor, you can even sue them for the legal costs and costs of damages.

> Enforcing it is free:

Are you proposing to do the work of writing up and sending C&Ds for these restaurants personally gratis? That's the only way it's "free".

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

#522

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…

> 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 growth hacking).

Isn't using someone else's brand to yours already illegal?

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

#524
post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fraud and perhaps trademark infringement

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

#525

The "uberfication" startup model had/has the same internet economics magic that dropshipping, crowdsourcing and such had, but for VC backed startups. As usual, XKCD captures the jist: https://xkcd.com/1060/ Users order food. App for that. Food is delivered by non-employees. HR is an app. Suppliers don't have to know they're suppliers. The CEO can focus on visionary statements. A software business has magic economics…

> startup founders seem to consider actually making the food beneath them.

Ghost kitchens are the next big space.

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

#526

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…

More pondering than a serious question; would it make a difference if they didn't rely on the original business name and reputation? For example, if I created a fictitious "Lucky Dog Chinese" and in fact delivered food provided by the "Lucky Cat Chinese" would that be disagreeable? Almost like dropshipping for restaurants.

California law wouldn't prohibit that.

The next step is "ghost kitchens".[1] These are commissary facilities that advertise as restaurants but only deliver. The ousted Uber CEO tried to get into that business, but not much seems to have come of "Cloud Kitchens".

Some of these seem to be new ways to get people to work for too little. The delivery service is just the landlord; they rent people who want to run a restaurant a kitchen space, sell them raw materials, and deliver the product. Doordash has one in Redwood City. They have Rooster and Rice, and Chick-Fil-A franchisees. That's near me, and it was sad to see gig drivers waiting for their specific order to be ready. If they were employees being paid for waiting time, the next driver would get the next order, to minimize paid waiting.

[1] https://www.fermag.com/articles/9618-7-Ghost-Kitchens-You-Ma...

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

#527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the problem is how it's packed, and delivery could be done correctly. Okay, that makes sense.

It's not only about packing. If you take your first bite a minute after a dish is ready in the kitchen, it leaves a much different impression than the first bite you take after 10 minutes in a ride. The extra time spent in the delivery is always going to make a huge different in how the food tastes, at least for certain dishes (dumplings, e.g.).

Yeah. I think if you got delivered a hamburger in a restaurant that had just been sitting for 15 minutes, not under heat lamps, you'd be complaining to the waiter. I think we sort of internalize that our food is going to be getting colder etc. as the process of eating it goes on and we don't really think about it. And, as I noted elsewhere, something like soup dumplings or dumplings generally (unless you pan-fry them at home) are going to be pretty meh too in general.

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

#528
post #124

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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#529
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…

What’s the problem here? The negative reviews are found on this delivery service app. They would therefore help other customers know that this restaurant is less desirable to order delivery from.

That’s what both parties want.

It seems to me that this is working “as intended” and no intervention from the state is needed.

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 restauran…

The distinctions are only arbitrary in the fantasy world where an iPhone is remotely similar to a burger. Food products, especially restaurant foods, are regulated differently than non-food consumer goods. And have been for over a century. There are licensing requirements, safety requirements, and other rules that apply to restaurants that don't apply to other businesses. And those "arbitrary" laws make all the diffe…

> There are licensing requirements, safety requirements, and other rules that apply to restaurants that don't apply to other businesses.

none of which are addressed in any way whatsoever in this new law. nor does this law add any licensing or safety requirements for the delivery person or delivery platform.

Post reply on HN