6 ms·

If you read the article to the end they claim they're not cybersquatting. Sounds pretty disingenuous to me. One of the rationales given is that they'll transfer

by arbuge 7y ago

If you read the article to the end they claim they're not cybersquatting. Sounds pretty disingenuous to me. One of the rationales given is that they'll transfer the domain to the restaurant if the latter requests it. Most of those restaurant owners probably won't know what's going on, or who to ask to have the domain transferred to them, or that they could even ask. Edit: The text of their response is quite curious. In part it reads: "Additionally, we have registered domains on their behalf, consistent with our restaurant contracts. We no longer provide that service..." If I were to guess, the fact that they'd be registering these domains was something slipped into the small print of their original contracts. Most restaurant owners probably wouldn't have noticed or understood the implications. The practice could have then been discontinued once it served its purposes of getting (or helping to get) Grubhub up to scale.

bredren 7y ago
Restaurants and their owners are notoriously bad at the internet. I have a friend in Seattle who became known as a reliable web developer for new restaurants. He took credit to eat rather than cash to do this relatively simple work for them. As a result, every time I’d visit we’d eat at some nice newer place on his credit line, responsible only for tips. It felt like minor celebrity. I suppose this is what newer website platforms are for but frankly I think even weebly is somehow too much for many.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > He took credit to eat rather than cash to do this relatively simple work for them. The good old tax dodge.
  - jtc331 7y ago
    Meh, it’s still taxable income that has to be reported :)
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Shall we bet on whether it was reported or not?
      - bredren 7y ago
        He was a VP for a big tech co in Seattle, and was getting $300-400 a site so this was more about knowing the restaurant community and doing a hobby not some elaborate tax scheme. You can dodge more taxes in Seattle driving down to Portland to buy a MacBook.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        Sorry, but that just isn't how it works. If you perform a service for restaurants and you don't invoice them but eat there instead of getting paid that's two helpings of tax fraud. Whether it is 'for a hobby' or not is irrelevant, someone else who did play by the book and for who it wasn't a hobby probably missed a bunch of sales because your buddy was willing to do this 'on the side' for shit & giggles because he already had an income stream.
kregasaurusrex 7y ago
Grubhub's official statement appears to not understand what cybersquatting actually means, and "created the websites for them" with the ordering process still occurring through Grubhub's platform oftentimes by simply changing the TLD of a company's existing website. Since these orders would directly feed into Grubhub's service, the business could be on the hook for a percentage fee that can be as high as 35% of the order's cost. This definitely seems to fall under extortion and cybersquatting to me.
- jacurtis 7y ago
  Its a legal response. The response even reads the definition of cybersquatting according to them which is that the domain was purchased as "generally bad faith registration of another person's trademark". So GrubHub is claiming that it wasn't purchased in "bad faith" because they are helping the business get more orders. Therefore it isn't cybersquatting. I am not saying I agree (I think all these delivery services are predatory in more ways than one), but there statement is saying that according to ICAAN's definition they are not cybersquatting. Of course this is semantics because the local business would claim that it was bought without permission and was bad faith. And that is what GrubHub's legal team wants. A discussion about the exact definition of cybersquatting that goes on for months and/or years until the small company realizes it isn't worth their time. This is the value of class action lawsuits. While class actions are often scams in their own right, this would be a legitimate example of a class action serving its purpose. All the thousands of restaurants affected by this would get together to fight against the company. That would be enough to scare GrubHub (and others).
- chrshawkes 7y ago
  I love how the CEO was on his high horse just a few years ago talking about the importance of ethics. If I recall correctly, he threatened to fire anybody who voted Republican? This guy clearly shouldn't be leading any company or group of people. Is anyone surprised by this?
covercash 7y ago
The pizza delivery app Slice does something similar... they buy domains that look like they could be legitimate and then outrank the actual website of the small local pizza shops with SEO. Then they tack on additional Slice fees and send the order through to the pizza place. Here’s an example: Actual site: http://www.mariostogo.com/ http://www.mariostogo.com/ Slice scam site: https://www.mariospizzaphiladelphia.com/ https://www.mariospizzaphiladelphia.com/ Most of these small pizza shops have no idea this is happening and Slice is just ripping off customers. They even claim listings or suggest edits on yelp, foursquare, google, etc. with their Slice domain so customers assume it’s the shop’s actual site. I wish someone from Yelp, Google, etc. would blacklist Slice sites and kill the company and their scammy business practices. Edit: I forgot to mention they created fake phone numbers for the shops too which is what alerted me to this scam in the first place. I googled the number for Mario’s and called it but a young female answered the phone and I heard call center chatter in the background... normally when calling Mario’s one of the guys with a thick accent answers and speaks in broken English. I’ve never seen a single female employee work there in the 15 years I’ve been ordering from them. On top of it all, the delivery address got screwed up between my call in order that Slice intercepted and Slice then calling the actual Mario’s number to relay my order. Come to think of it, I payed with a credit card over the phone so Slice took my CC info and then relayed that as well... that doesn’t seem kosher. (I now have the real Mario’s number stored as a contact in my phone.)
- xur17 7y ago
  Interestingly the prices appear to be identical on these two websites (but it's still quite scary to see this happening).
  - harrisonjackson 7y ago
    They're probably taking a commission on the orders coming in through the bogus website or call center. The call center is what really gets me. I can understand how the website with a much better seo rank could drive more business to a mom and pop shop, but supplanting a legitimate phone number on yelp or wherever else is seriously shady.
- 7y ago
saltminer 7y ago
> Most of those restaurant owners probably won't know what's going on, or who to ask to have the domain transferred to them, or that they could even ask. That's assuming you don't have to hire a lawyer to send a strongly-worded letter to them. Given the thin margins many restaurants operate under, it would be easier for many places to not bother, especially since GrubHub relays the orders, so even if the order goes to the wrong address they still get their money.

by arbuge 7y ago

bredren 7y ago

Restaurants and their owners are notoriously bad at the internet. I have a friend in Seattle who became known as a reliable web developer for new restaurants. He took credit to eat rather than cash to do this relatively simple work for them. As a result, every time I’d visit we’d eat at some nice newer place on his credit line, responsible only for tips. It felt like minor celebrity. I suppose this is what newer website platforms are for but frankly I think even weebly is somehow too much for many.

jacquesm 7y ago
> He took credit to eat rather than cash to do this relatively simple work for them. The good old tax dodge.
- jtc331 7y ago
  Meh, it’s still taxable income that has to be reported :)
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Shall we bet on whether it was reported or not?
    - bredren 7y ago
      He was a VP for a big tech co in Seattle, and was getting $300-400 a site so this was more about knowing the restaurant community and doing a hobby not some elaborate tax scheme. You can dodge more taxes in Seattle driving down to Portland to buy a MacBook.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Sorry, but that just isn't how it works. If you perform a service for restaurants and you don't invoice them but eat there instead of getting paid that's two helpings of tax fraud. Whether it is 'for a hobby' or not is irrelevant, someone else who did play by the book and for who it wasn't a hobby probably missed a bunch of sales because your buddy was willing to do this 'on the side' for shit & giggles because he already had an income stream.

kregasaurusrex 7y ago

Grubhub's official statement appears to not understand what cybersquatting actually means, and "created the websites for them" with the ordering process still occurring through Grubhub's platform oftentimes by simply changing the TLD of a company's existing website. Since these orders would directly feed into Grubhub's service, the business could be on the hook for a percentage fee that can be as high as 35% of the order's cost. This definitely seems to fall under extortion and cybersquatting to me.

jacurtis 7y ago
Its a legal response. The response even reads the definition of cybersquatting according to them which is that the domain was purchased as "generally bad faith registration of another person's trademark". So GrubHub is claiming that it wasn't purchased in "bad faith" because they are helping the business get more orders. Therefore it isn't cybersquatting. I am not saying I agree (I think all these delivery services are predatory in more ways than one), but there statement is saying that according to ICAAN's definition they are not cybersquatting. Of course this is semantics because the local business would claim that it was bought without permission and was bad faith. And that is what GrubHub's legal team wants. A discussion about the exact definition of cybersquatting that goes on for months and/or years until the small company realizes it isn't worth their time. This is the value of class action lawsuits. While class actions are often scams in their own right, this would be a legitimate example of a class action serving its purpose. All the thousands of restaurants affected by this would get together to fight against the company. That would be enough to scare GrubHub (and others).
chrshawkes 7y ago
I love how the CEO was on his high horse just a few years ago talking about the importance of ethics. If I recall correctly, he threatened to fire anybody who voted Republican? This guy clearly shouldn't be leading any company or group of people. Is anyone surprised by this?

covercash 7y ago

The pizza delivery app Slice does something similar... they buy domains that look like they could be legitimate and then outrank the actual website of the small local pizza shops with SEO. Then they tack on additional Slice fees and send the order through to the pizza place. Here’s an example: Actual site: http://www.mariostogo.com/ http://www.mariostogo.com/ Slice scam site: https://www.mariospizzaphiladelphia.com/ https://www.mariospizzaphiladelphia.com/ Most of these small pizza shops have no idea this is happening and Slice is just ripping off customers. They even claim listings or suggest edits on yelp, foursquare, google, etc. with their Slice domain so customers assume it’s the shop’s actual site. I wish someone from Yelp, Google, etc. would blacklist Slice sites and kill the company and their scammy business practices. Edit: I forgot to mention they created fake phone numbers for the shops too which is what alerted me to this scam in the first place. I googled the number for Mario’s and called it but a young female answered the phone and I heard call center chatter in the background... normally when calling Mario’s one of the guys with a thick accent answers and speaks in broken English. I’ve never seen a single female employee work there in the 15 years I’ve been ordering from them. On top of it all, the delivery address got screwed up between my call in order that Slice intercepted and Slice then calling the actual Mario’s number to relay my order. Come to think of it, I payed with a credit card over the phone so Slice took my CC info and then relayed that as well... that doesn’t seem kosher. (I now have the real Mario’s number stored as a contact in my phone.)

xur17 7y ago
Interestingly the prices appear to be identical on these two websites (but it's still quite scary to see this happening).
- harrisonjackson 7y ago
  They're probably taking a commission on the orders coming in through the bogus website or call center. The call center is what really gets me. I can understand how the website with a much better seo rank could drive more business to a mom and pop shop, but supplanting a legitimate phone number on yelp or wherever else is seriously shady.
7y ago

saltminer 7y ago

> Most of those restaurant owners probably won't know what's going on, or who to ask to have the domain transferred to them, or that they could even ask. That's assuming you don't have to hire a lawyer to send a strongly-worded letter to them. Given the thin margins many restaurants operate under, it would be easier for many places to not bother, especially since GrubHub relays the orders, so even if the order goes to the wrong address they still get their money.