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

601–610 of 663 posts

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

#601

Post by cbhl »

jedimastert wrote: post #505
smarx007 wrote: post #315

I think it would have been much better to outlaw misrepresentation and advertising without prior agreement (ie the pizza place that did not agree to partnership should only pop up in the search results if the user searches for it) and there should be a warning mandated like "Startup Inc is not affiliated with the Moms and Pops Pizza. If you proceed, we will place your order by calling PHONE_NUMBER and pick up your or…

I've noticed that Doordash can sometimes do the opposite: if I search for a particular dish or genre (pizza, grilled cheese, pasta, Chinese take out, etc.) I'll often get restaurants that I can't pull up by searching for the name. I thought they were punishing or something, I just now realized they might be doing it to hide from search results or to hid the fact that the restaurants are listed...

I actually think those are the cases where they do have an agreement with a restaurant owner. Usually it's a made-up restaurant name for marketing, since the concrete implementation is a different restaurant's kitchen or a ghost kitchen.

Like I'll search for "salad" and the address is listed as some pizza place, but it comes in a special bag that matches the online restaurant name.

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

#602

Post by derefr »

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…

> Even pre pandemic it was patently obvious to anyone who paid attention that certain foods just don’t deliver well.

Before the pandemic, many people had literally never ordered delivery before!

I for one only ever ordered carry-out, or ate at the restaurant. I live in an urban jungle of restaurants, all within walking distance; why would I pay someone to drive to a place that's within five minutes' walk?

Recent months have been educational about both the virtues and vices of delivery food. This has not been an education I would have ever otherwise received.

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

#603

Post by derefr »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #467
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…

A local (actual, not American) Chinese joint makes by far the best soup dumplings in town. During the pandemic they’ve understandably switched to takeout only, but now their reviews are filled with people that are disappointed by dumplings that aren’t steaming hot inside and have holes because they stick to the takeout containers. I feel really bad for the owners - they’re forced to choose between endangering the liv…

> because they stick to the takeout containers

Technological solution: some sort of return-for-deposit Teflon-walled thermos. Only available for regular customers, of course.

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

#604

Post by dayaz36 »

baby_wipe wrote: post #326

My understanding is DoorDash started out by listing restaurants without their permission. Now DoorDash has this legislation which will protect them from any new startup who tries to do the same thing. (The assumption being it will be much easier for DoorDash to obtain permission than it would be for a nascent startup.)

Bingo!

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

#605

Post by Talanes »

wpietri wrote: post #534
btilly wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure where you live, but here in SF, waxed paper and cardboard go in the compost bin.

And paper coffee cups can be straight up recycled here as well, with a rinse.

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

#606

Post by ljm »

mrweasel wrote: post #222
ljm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doordash priced the pizza at $16, but the pizza place charged $24. Presumably a 'growth hack' to get more users. The pizza place, seeing the difference, bought pizzas for $16 and received $24 from Door Dash, so for each purchase they were $8 better off. They also ordered plain pizza dough in larger quantities, for more profit. Presumably because they didn't have to actually make the full pizza.

How would is that ever going to work long term? Most pizza places I frequent offer free delivery, or very cheap delivery once you get pizza for two people. The “growth hack” will never work when you compete with your supplier. Even if this was somehow going to work, once Doordash has pushed others out of the market, then they would need to raise the price significantly, pushing many to just do pickup themselfs. More…

Growth hacks are never about sustainably growing a business, they're just there to fatten it up before parading it in front of the VCs.

Of course by growth hacking, we're talking about the act of using unethical practices against users to boost certain metrics.

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

#607

Post by ehnto »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #490
ehnto wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to sound a bit curmudgeonly, but why should hospitality bend over to some tech middlemen? Not every industry needs to "innovate" their way into surviving the VC bubble's attempts to disrupt it. Hospitality is a fundamental service that's been provided for centuries, and is a cornerstone of the economy. Second to that, the law doesn't prohibit it, it just makes the delivery service seek an arrangement fi…

> This is going to sound a bit curmudgeonly, but why should hospitality bend over to some tech middlemen? Because that’s what their customers want, and providing something that their customers want should probably be one of the most important things for a business to do. The only genuine harm that can be caused to these businesses by the delivery companies, is if the delivery company is legitimately impersonating the…

Their customers want easy delivery options that's definitely true. But if you could ask them if they think restaurants deserve a chance at fair negotiations they would probably also say yes.

All the bill is asking for is cooperation up front, not afterwards if at all. It's not criminalizing the business model of DoorDash and friends, it's just forcing them to treat their business partners like business partners.

I think it's fair to say I have some bias here though. I am a little bit too cynical toward these companies to believe they're just out here trying to better the world. They're doing their best to spin a buck before going public and peacing out. Case in point, DoorDash just IPOd with no profit and no projection for profitability, even in it's best case scenario (massive increase in online ordering).

So obviously the service is extremely useful, people find it useful while it's subsidized but no one has yet bared the full cost of these platforms.

In my opinion we need to protect existing businesses who are profitable and thus have a proven place in the economy, while these disruptive companies flail about free from the shackles of actually fitting into the economy, just in case it turns out they wouldn't.

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

#608

Post by jstanley »

ddingus wrote: post #544
jstanley wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I completely agree. They shouldn't lie. I was arguing that they're not "forcing" themselves in the middle of any transaction. They're a separate route for the transaction.

Seperate route for A transaction, not THE transaction. The difference is setting expectations and how they are managed. The restaurant is able to set and manage expectations when people deal with them. They are not able to do that with other agents, unless that relationship has been established and mutually agreed to. If doing that came along with the outside service, such as what one might experience with a general…

Unless you think GrubHub are forcing themselves in the middle of a transaction that was going to take place anyway, I don't think we disagree.

GrubHub are offering a service where they go and pick up your food for you from a place that offers takeaway but not home delivery.

That sounds fine, I can't imagine anyone having an objection with that service, even if the restaurant hasn't signed up for it.

The problem is that GrubHub are making people think they're dealing directly with the restaurant, not that GrubHub are picking up food from restaurants that didn't sign up for it.

The problem isn't that GrubHub are sitting in the middle of a transaction between a customer and a restaurant. The problem is that they're (maybe) lying about it.

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

#609

Post by onion2k »

jstanley wrote: post #268
m3kw9 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my resturant didn’t sign up for a middle man, don’t force yourself in between. That seems reasonable

But they're not forcing themselves in between. All the customers you already had are still going directly to you. They're just widening the pool of potential customers.

I used to order directly from a local Chinese restaurant quite regularly, but when they appeared on Just Eat I ordered from there instead (convienence and laziness on my part). I never thought to ask if they'd actually joined or if Just Eat had added them without consent.

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

#610

Post by MisterBastahrd »

tomnipotent wrote: post #239
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the case with these delivery services. If ANYTHING is wrong with your order, they will refer you to the business that cooked the food unless you blow them up on the phone.

> they will refer you to the business that cooked the food unless This hasn't been my experience. Every time I've used Grubhub or Postmates and used their form to submit an issue with an order, the services have always either refunded me the issue or provided credit. I've never had to deal with the restaurant, unless I wanted something outside of money.

It's been my experience multiple times or I wouldn't have mentioned it
Post reply on HN