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

571–580 of 663 posts

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

#571

Post by DangitBobby »

cutemonster wrote: post #562
wutbrodo wrote: post #557

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. 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.

> Things that you think are "perplexingly obvious", to the point that you can't conceive of not thinking about it, just aren't to them. And it can take almost half a lifetime to realize this That other people can have so vastly different brains.

Which is pretty strange given that you see can see clearly a vast spectrum of different mental capabilities (from handicap to genius) your entire life. I guess it flies in the face of cultural virtues about how hard work will set you free.

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

#572

Post by carapace »

wasdfff wrote: post #482
st1x7 wrote: post #478

Threads like this one remind me just how different the US is from Europe. It's astounding to think that it was even possible until now for delivery apps to operate in this way, or that this is somehow a controversial issue.

Thanks to the lobbying system, most laws and regulation in the US serve to protect and enrich moneyed interests beyond all else. If something is actually collectively beneficial to the wider populace, its a happy accident. Politics in the US make much more sense when understood through the lobbying lens.

Yeah there was that infamous study: "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

> Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

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

#573

Post by koolk3ychain »

I usually disagree with flick of the wrist legislation from CA but this is a win! Unfortunately, this will likely just lead to google and these delivery apps actively suppressing search / SEO for restaurants that refuse to use their platforms :(

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

#574

Post by Can_Not »

jxramos wrote: post #344
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…

I went to pickup a take out order for my wife the other day and the cashier asked if this was a personal order? I was so confused I didn't even know how to answer and just asked "personal order meaning what". She answered, "I mean you're not with door dash or something right, you personally made the order?". It was a pretty baffling exchange and maybe this misrepresentation speaks to some of that.

The way cashiers assume I'm a delivery driver makes me think I'm literally the only person who uses the app.

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

#575

Post by whiddershins »

wpietri wrote: post #309
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…

> 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…

But in that instance the dish wouldn’t be available for take out either.

If the restaurant sells takeout, why does it matter whether I take it gone to my house or another person’s house?

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

#576

Post by [deleted] »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #240
whiddershins wrote: post #66

Not everything has to be solved with a new law. In fact, most things shouldn’t.

The legislator has to act when the private sector refuses to behave ethically. I don't see any problem here. DoorDash and co created the problem with their unethical business model, which is at the expense of restaurants they list on their own website without any kind of agreement whatsoever. They should have stuck to restaurants who agree to do business with DoorDash.

[deleted]

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

#577

Post by amyjess »

Animats wrote: post #526
VBprogrammer wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 restaur…

There are a number of these ghost kitchens in my area available on Uber Eats, some of which are pretty good.

Some of the best Nashville hot chicken I've ever had has been delivered from a place simply titled "Nashville Hot Chicken Shack". Googling them, I couldn't find anything about them. Not even putting in the street address gives me anything. But I did find out the address belonged to another restaurant, which let me realize that they were a ghost kitchen using that restaurant's kitchen facilities. And then I noticed in the app that the restaurant's name was mentioned in small print, which finally confirmed it.

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

#578

Post by vkou »

tylersmith wrote: post #536
vkou wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire purpose of legislature is to legislate solutions to problems that society faces.

Not to legislate solutions to private businesses' disputes.

Business disputes are handled through the legal system.

1. The legal system is a direct product of legislature, as are the rules that it enforces.

2. It is absolutely the legislature's responsibility to step into systemic, one-to-many disputes, especially when there is a gross power imbalance between the two sides.

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

#579

Post by splaytreemap »

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…

It's very much deniable.

This now forces restaurants to sign an agreement and start paying a commission. Previously, they got a free delivery service at no cost to them. Now they either have to pay or lose business. This is bad for the majority of restaurants.

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

#580

Post by splaytreemap »

jiofih wrote: post #504
cleak wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's up to the individual restaurants to agree to this. There's no automatic 30% commission. If a delivery company wants to burn their capital offering discounts, why stop them? The restaurant is under no obligation to sign a contract taking on the burden of kreping those discounts.

Very naive view. They will be “strongly incentivized” to sign once the company can threaten to pull their listing off and vanish 50% of their customer base. Nothing new here, standard growth playbook.

So then why would California force them into that very situation?
Post reply on HN