In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash • Hacker News Board

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#71

Post by scat » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 5:46 PM UTC

bgilroy26 wrote: post #57

danso wrote: post #11

FWIW, Eater published an article 5 days ago that discussed examples of New York eateries who are either OK or annoyed with being listed without permission http://ny.eater.com/2015/11/6/9678206/door-dash-delivery-nyc > But not all restaurants on DoorDash know that they're listed. Tommy Ferrick, owner of Delilah's Steaks in Greenpoint, says he rejected an offer from a DoorDash salesperson months ago due to a 20 to 25 p…

>A cheesesteak costs $11 in the shop, for example, but DoorDash charged $16.95 for it. From a customer perspective, this practice feels very disingenuous. The 5.95 should be labeled as part of a delivery fee. If somehow DoorDash was the first link a user visited after searching for "donut plant", they would need information to decide whether to visit the restaurant or to order online. The transparent thing to do is t…

> From a customer perspective, this practice feels very disingenuous. The 5.95 should be labeled as part of a delivery fee.

Yes it is. While possible markups are mentioned somewhere their site, we didn't know about it until months after we had been regularly ordering from doordash.

Since then we only order if absolutely necessary, and prefer to pick up ourselves or use the restaurant delivery itself.

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#72

Post by SilasX » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

bgilroy26 wrote: post #57

danso wrote: post #11

FWIW, Eater published an article 5 days ago that discussed examples of New York eateries who are either OK or annoyed with being listed without permission http://ny.eater.com/2015/11/6/9678206/door-dash-delivery-nyc > But not all restaurants on DoorDash know that they're listed. Tommy Ferrick, owner of Delilah's Steaks in Greenpoint, says he rejected an offer from a DoorDash salesperson months ago due to a 20 to 25 p…

>A cheesesteak costs $11 in the shop, for example, but DoorDash charged $16.95 for it. From a customer perspective, this practice feels very disingenuous. The 5.95 should be labeled as part of a delivery fee. If somehow DoorDash was the first link a user visited after searching for "donut plant", they would need information to decide whether to visit the restaurant or to order online. The transparent thing to do is t…

Intuitively, that makes sense, but isn't it also pretty well-accepted for a retailer, reseller, or other "middleman" not to disclose their costs?

If you go to Walmart, you don't expect the price labels to say "$0.50 Kellogg bulk unit cost, $0.80 retail storage fee"; you just expect "$1.30", and the store's costs are their own concern.

It would certainly be a nice thing to do, but we generally don't expect retailers to facilitate you buying from their supplier.

On the other hand, retailers also probably have explicit permission from vendors to resell the good, which DoorDash doesn't.

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#73

Post by chatmasta » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #72

bgilroy26 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A cheesesteak costs $11 in the shop, for example, but DoorDash charged $16.95 for it. From a customer perspective, this practice feels very disingenuous. The 5.95 should be labeled as part of a delivery fee. If somehow DoorDash was the first link a user visited after searching for "donut plant", they would need information to decide whether to visit the restaurant or to order online. The transparent thing to do is t…

Intuitively, that makes sense, but isn't it also pretty well-accepted for a retailer, reseller, or other "middleman" not to disclose their costs? If you go to Walmart, you don't expect the price labels to say "$0.50 Kellogg bulk unit cost, $0.80 retail storage fee"; you just expect "$1.30", and the store's costs are their own concern. It would certainly be a nice thing to do, but we generally don't expect retailers t…

This is a good point but also an unfair comparison. Walmart consumers do not have the option of walking to the factory instead of walmart. Doordash consumers can walk to the restaurant instead of ordering from doordash.

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#74

Post by sharemywin » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #33

chrischen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably something illegal about using their logo and displaying a modified menu with marked up prices.

That's the trademark side of the case, and yes, In N Out could probably successfully argue that usage of their logo implies endorsement and/or is likely to create consumer confusion and that it's therefore a trademark violation. That's pretty easy for DoorDash to put to rest; just stop putting In N Out's logo on the site. A few good, highly-visible disclaimers would probably put any remainder of a trademark claim to…

they probably would need to strip the fluff from the menu. ie. the hot juicy blah burger with .... is just burger, ketchup, mayo, lettuce.

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#75

Post by ubersync » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #72

bgilroy26 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A cheesesteak costs $11 in the shop, for example, but DoorDash charged $16.95 for it. From a customer perspective, this practice feels very disingenuous. The 5.95 should be labeled as part of a delivery fee. If somehow DoorDash was the first link a user visited after searching for "donut plant", they would need information to decide whether to visit the restaurant or to order online. The transparent thing to do is t…

Intuitively, that makes sense, but isn't it also pretty well-accepted for a retailer, reseller, or other "middleman" not to disclose their costs? If you go to Walmart, you don't expect the price labels to say "$0.50 Kellogg bulk unit cost, $0.80 retail storage fee"; you just expect "$1.30", and the store's costs are their own concern. It would certainly be a nice thing to do, but we generally don't expect retailers t…

> On the other hand, retailers also probably have explicit permission from vendors to resell the good, which DoorDash doesn't.

That's the biggest reason I see. In your case, Kellogg is "allowing" Walmart to resell its products.

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#76

Post by ubersync » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 6:43 PM UTC

mturmon wrote: post #64

Intermernet wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah! I had no idea they did that (I live in Australia). I read the linked Wikipedia page, but I still can't work out what the point is. Is that some form of subliminal missionary tactic? Sure the Snyder family were Christian, but why print bible citations on take-away wrappers? What's the context? What's the so-called "take-away"?

I eat there frequently, and I can't work out what the point is either. There is no other manifest connection between Christianity and the establishment. Note that many of the verses cited are the more vanilla Christian selections. Probably the most objectionable one (especially to non-Christian believers) is John 4:16 ("no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me"), but that one is not printed on anything a customer wou…

It could just be my experience, but I have very rarely seen a non-white person working at an In-N-Out.

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#77

Post by SilasX » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 8:01 PM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #73

SilasX wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intuitively, that makes sense, but isn't it also pretty well-accepted for a retailer, reseller, or other "middleman" not to disclose their costs? If you go to Walmart, you don't expect the price labels to say "$0.50 Kellogg bulk unit cost, $0.80 retail storage fee"; you just expect "$1.30", and the store's costs are their own concern. It would certainly be a nice thing to do, but we generally don't expect retailers t…

This is a good point but also an unfair comparison. Walmart consumers do not have the option of walking to the factory instead of walmart. Doordash consumers can walk to the restaurant instead of ordering from doordash.

I think the analogy holds in this respect: in both cases, you can get it from the supplier, it's just less convenient, either because of having to go there, or needing to be shipped a longer distance, or needing to buy a bulk.

(Per sibling, a more relevant difference would be Walmart's having permission, but I'm not sure that's relevant to the consumer expectation; "telling you how cheap this stuff is from the source" is the kind of "facilitating you getting it cheaper" that we don't expect retailers to do.)

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#78

Post by dang » Thu, Nov 12, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

indubitably wrote: post #68

ronyeh wrote: post #27

"...concerns around quality, food handling and safety." I completely understand. I used DoorDash exactly once to order from a local Chinese restaurant. The food was delivered by a dude who looked disinterested, and the containers were crushed and leaking lots of brown sauce into the plastic bag. It wasn't a great experience. Whose fault was it? I dunno. But I haven't ordered from DoorDash or that Chinese restaurant s…

Oh sweet jesus, your Chinese delivery was a not a great food experience! The styrofoam delivered by the overworked, underpaid delivery guy was imperfect ! Man, I hope somebody comes up with a door-to-door therapist to help you recover from your $19.95 egg roll experience. That's just gotta suck man. I'm so glad you were able to move past that relationship, and I'm sure if you keep believing you will find some other c…

Please don't do this here.

Re: In-N-Out Files Lawsuit Against Food Delivery Startup DoorDash

#79

Post by chrischen » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #33

chrischen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably something illegal about using their logo and displaying a modified menu with marked up prices.

That's the trademark side of the case, and yes, In N Out could probably successfully argue that usage of their logo implies endorsement and/or is likely to create consumer confusion and that it's therefore a trademark violation. That's pretty easy for DoorDash to put to rest; just stop putting In N Out's logo on the site. A few good, highly-visible disclaimers would probably put any remainder of a trademark claim to…

I can understand the factual part, but only if they didn't alter the prices. They'd have to at least mark it clearly that they're charging on top of the prices some amount.