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

#581

Post by Talanes » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 5:22 AM UTC

ianhorn wrote: post #413

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…

Does delivery tend to be different from takeout in your experience? It does in mine. The gap between finishing prep and me eating it is much longer for delivery, except that the apps almost all lie about it. While your order is sitting there waiting for a driver for 10 minutes, they tell you, no way! It’s not our inability to get a driver there quickly! It’s the restaurant who is still wrapping up right now! If they…

As the rare food service worker on HN, I can confirm this is exactly the case. Yesterday I watched an order from a partnered delivery service take just over an hour from the ticket printing to the driver showing up.

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

#582

Post by colejohnson66 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #518

imtringued wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If DoorDash can’t be arsed to ask for permission from whoever to deliver, then maybe it’s for the better that they don’t deliver that place. Sure, it costs more than just adding the place to their site, but the restaurant is having their image harmed by soggy food. If that restaurant doesn’t want to allow delivery, they should have that option.

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

#583

Post by colejohnson66 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 5:27 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #564

squidlogic wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't envision a way you can be making this argument in good faith while actively discarding that the review is next to the restaurant's name and not the delivery service's delivery of that restaurant's food .

For people who can’t understand it, think about Amazon and the various “1 star; late” “reviews”. To think that the same won’t happen with food is wishful thinking.

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

#584

Post by colejohnson66 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 5:29 AM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #575

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…

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?

DoorDashers have a tendency to pick up multiple orders at the same time without informing me. So I’ll order food expecting it’ll take 20 minutes, then it takes 40 because the dasher decided to take 4 orders at once. With a friend, I know they’re going there and coming right back, and if not, they generally let me know and I can reconsider.

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

#585

Post by Diesel555 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 5:35 AM UTC

splaytreemap wrote: post #579

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.

While I do agree with the original post, I don't like the verbiage "undeniably a good thing" as they are saying there is no denying that what I am saying is true. And to think you know everything about an issue means you aren't willing to listen to different view points. Nothing I ever say is undeniable.

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

#586

Post by _huayra_ » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 5:49 AM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #507

_huayra_ wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already the case with bigger companies. As is the usual case with a lot "disruptive" firms, that "growth hacking" comes from exploiting some regulatory loophole that no one else has seen yet (e.g. most things related to the "sharing economy"). I'm pretty sure if I just declared myself to be a sales partner (idk the term?) of Cisco, IBM, Oracle, etc and just resold their gear, I'd be in hot water legally becau…

>I'm pretty sure if I just declared myself to be a sales partner (idk the term?) of Cisco, IBM, Oracle, etc and just resold their gear, I'd be in hot water legally because my actions would reflect on them. This is pretty much how local governments buy IT gear. Put out a "I want a router" low volume RFP that the tech companies don't want to bother with, and some local vendor will resell to you. Ideally, they're gettin…

But don't those vendors have to have some sales agreement with Cisco? I'm guessing they don't after reading about it a bit more, but I'm just surprised.

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

#587

Post by throw_m239339 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 6:03 AM UTC

akrymski wrote: post #551

throw_m239339 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Why can Google aggregate websites without author permissions?

Because you can't even tell the difference between a fraudulent delivery business and a search engine aggregating a bunch of links? OK...

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

#588

Post by ashtonkem » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 6:06 AM UTC

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.

Paper in general doesn’t always recycle well in practice. The issue is that grease ruins batches of paper that are being recycled by literally greasing the fibers so they don’t stick together into a coherent product. This is a big issue when food grease ends up in the recycling chain, especially in the form of pizza boxes.

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

#589

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 6:07 AM UTC

akrymski wrote: post #552

anandsuresh wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buy…

[deleted]

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

#590

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 6:14 AM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #410

> A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility. That's more than just preventing apps from listing a restaurant. I don't think delivery services should be able to represent restaurants without an agre…

[deleted]