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

#551

Post by akrymski » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 1:22 AM UTC

throw_m239339 wrote: post #463

akrymski wrote: post #458

Yet another law to reduce competition in the delivery space and help existing monopolies. I'm sure GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering. Indexing and aggregating data is already covered by numerous laws. If Google can aggregate restaurant listings without permission then why can't others? Linking is ok, showing a call button is ok, but delivering isn't? The law around copyright is clear: you can't copy a restaurants men…

> Why don't restaurants want delivery companies doing this? Why can't delivery services ask for permission before listing food from restaurants first? Why do they feel the need to impersonate restaurants, steal their menu, their trademark while never disclosing to the client that the restaurant has absolutely no part in that deal? Why can't delivery services behave in an ethical fashion that doesn't involve fraud? Wh…

Why can Google aggregate websites without author permissions?

Data protection laws already exist.

I'm not arguing it's good or bad. I'm just saying that since the laws won't be applied retroactively it equates to creating a huge barrier for new startups entering the field. Instead of promoting competition, existing leaders will be able to put ever more pricing pressure on restaurants.

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

#552

Post by akrymski » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

anandsuresh wrote: post #496

akrymski wrote: post #458

Yet another law to reduce competition in the delivery space and help existing monopolies. I'm sure GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering. Indexing and aggregating data is already covered by numerous laws. If Google can aggregate restaurant listings without permission then why can't others? Linking is ok, showing a call button is ok, but delivering isn't? The law around copyright is clear: you can't copy a restaurants men…

It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it does make it harder for newer businesses to enter the space. However, from what I have been able to piece together, the real culprits here are DoorDash and GrubHub, by listing restaurants without permission/agreements in the first place, necessitating the creation of this law. You're probably right that GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering at the moment, unless the law get…

Market forces will have the opposite effect: leaders in delivery will monopolize further and have even more pricing power, taking ever larger share from restaurants.

Instead we could have had lots of delivery companies competing on price.

Apple may want to control the purchasing experience by only selling their products at Apple Stores. Should I not be able to pay someone for the service of going to the store and buying an iPhone? Is food really that different? This issue already exists in e-commerce: as a buyer do I complain to the delivery service such as UPS or the seller?

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

#553

Post by gamblor956 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

listenallyall wrote: post #530

gamblor956 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Additional licensing and safety requirements aren't required.

In requiring the delivery platforms to get permission from the restaurants, the delivery platforms are deemed agents of the restaurant and therefore are subject to any existing requirements that apply to food delivery.

IOW, the food safety rules now apply to Uber Eats, GrubHub, etc., without requiring a redundant set of new laws.

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

#554

Post by azernik » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 1:43 AM 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…

OT, but Indian food also travels very well.

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

#555

Post by kibibyte » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #538

kibibyte wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is. I had a friend whose father was a chemical engineer back in the 1980s who did a study on it. The cost per cubic yard to recycle styrofoam was insanely cheap. It was just that it required a specialized process that nobody implemented because creating more was also cheap. So it wasn't recycled, but it could have been.

Is it also possible that food-contaminated styrofoam is significantly costlier to recycle than styrofoam on its own, or did this specialized process also take care of this problem?

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

#556

Post by MaintenanceMode » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

cleak wrote: post #289

jiofih wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That “free” advertising is competing with your own channels (without the 30% commission). Also there are uncountable reports of them fucking up the delivery itself by not having appropriate containers, when the restaurant they are dealing doesn’t actually do deliveries. That will lose you customers and hurt your brand.

I’m confused. How is GrubHub getting a 30% commission out of restaurants that don’t actively partner with them?

It's not just about the money. The menus, information, and other details are just wrong or go out-of-date because this pizza restaurant changes things on a daily basis. Additionally their business is not setup for take-out at scale. They do the occasional take-out but when the phone starts ringing with to-go orders they were not anticipating, they are not staffed or ready to meet the demand. They call to remove themselves and then a few weeks later they end up back on there.

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

#557

Post by wutbrodo » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 1:59 AM 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’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.

I don't say this with any malice, but a lot of people are just not that bright. Things that you think are "perplexingly obvious", to the point that you can't conceive of not thinking about them, just aren't to them.

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

#558

Post by ScoobleDoodle » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:02 AM UTC

loceng wrote: post #517

ScoobleDoodle wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

In English, by calling out a specific subject in the sentence that is the implied and assumed context. Not more and not less. Unless clarified in preceding or subsequent sentences. Otherwise everything needs a qualifier all of the time which would make communication annoying, overly verbose, and burdensome. We do this to get along in the world and with each other. This is why it is correct to consider Grubhub dishonest or incompetent. They are using an alternate meaning, which is not common usage, by leaving out the necessary qualifiers to communicate what they actually mean.

By your misinterpretation of this I’d guess you deal with rigorous systems and strive towards clarity. That is fine but not how common language is used. Grub hubs language here is exploiting not using common standards to veil their intended and unexpected meaning in language the reader will find positive because of their common interpretation, which is false information because grubhub means something non-standard.

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

#559

Post by runarberg » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:02 AM UTC

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #218

ghaff wrote: 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…

> And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. This isn’t actually clear. GrubHub’s about page: “ Grubhub is a leading online and mobile food-ordering and delivery marketplace with the largest and most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. ” This tells me as a customer that the restaurant is a consenting partner. This is a lie. EDIT: a commentor below had issue with my use of th…

Response to edit: A lie by obfuscation, or a lie by misdirection is still a lie.

If you set something up so it is easy to believe a thing, without ever stating that thing, you are still lying, it is just not obvious that you are.

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

#560

Post by codecamper » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

Thereby ensuring that the dominant companies stay dominant, because they just upped the barriers to entry.

Always count on government to do the opposite thing to what might actually fix the problem.

The actual problem is not that delivery apps list without consent. The actual, real problem is that they use their dominance to take their cut.

Without that dominance we could easily see another app & another app until that margin is a mere cloud fees + 50% sort of markup.

But now... restaurants can go on paying through the nose.