6 ms·

Short form: the restaurants didn't read the TOS, and they have been treated with more consideration than that document requires. GrubHub has done nothing wrong

Short form: the restaurants didn't read the TOS, and they have been treated with more consideration than that document requires. GrubHub has done nothing wrong, and even went out of its way to do the right thing.

dentemple 7y ago
Utilizing a TOS to exploit small businesses in a domain they have little expertise in. "GrubHub has done nothing wrong", indeed.
- Traster 7y ago
  Terms of service is the wrong term really. These restaurants signed a contract with another business to receive a service. They didn't read the contract. People running businesses shouldn't be signing contracts without at the very least reading the document carefully. These are absolutely not analagous to Terms of Service and businesses do not enjoy consumer protection laws. These contracts just could just as easily said "Grubhub has the right to offer 10% discounts on weekends" - it wouldn't even be unusual.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Why do you think "terms of service" is the wrong term? The article refers to it as such multiple times.
    - marcosdumay 7y ago
      Terms of service usually apply to site visitors, not commercial partners.
throwaway2048 7y ago
If a TOS says that they get your firstborn son, but they settle instead for his arm, they aren't some kind of hero.
happytoexplain 7y ago
It's difficult to fathom how "you agreed to worse in the TOS" could be considered synonymous with "consideration" and "doing the right thing". It's frankly surreal to see a person suggest it.
dogecoinbase 7y ago
GrubHub has done nothing wrong... Whether or not this is the case is unrelated to what is permitted by law or contract.
iwantagrinder 7y ago
Terrifying how we have people taking the side of a TOS belonging to a shitty gig economy startup over small business owning human beings
- JasonFruit 7y ago
  If the human beings don't read the contacts they sign, they won't be owning a business for long. If GrubHub put it in writing, and another business didn't bother to figure out what it was signing, I can't see how it's GrubHub's fault.
  - criddell 7y ago
    > If the human beings don't read the contacts they sign, they won't be owning a business for long. That's bullshit and you know it. They may be naive thinking an internet company like Grub Hub will act decently, but that doesn't make the restaurant operators wrong. It's too bad software developers and startup people don't have to go through a course on ethics to gain certification like professional engineers do.
    - JasonFruit 7y ago
      I really don't know that's bullshit. Please accept the idea that sometimes people might honestly disagree with you.
    - tdhoot 7y ago
      You mean it's too bad people aren't forced to feel the same way about issues as you do.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Nah, they mean too bad people are allowed to be abusive. Using your ability to outSEO your customer to capture the money that would otherwise go to them is abuse.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
jedimastert 7y ago
Go and ask the nearest 10 local-business restaurant owners what the sentence: > “may create, maintain and operate a microsite (“MS”) and obtain the URL for such MS on restaurant’s behalf.” means. I can guarantee most of them will have no idea what that means. Even if they knew what a "microsite" was, that could mean so many different things anyways. And before you say "then they should have asked a lawyer," 1) yes, but there may not be many lawyers who'd know what that meant either, and 2) there's no way restaurant owners could get that removed from the contract, so they'd basically have to sign anyways or remove a source of revenue. The point being, there's a wide gulf between "it was in the TOS" and "The owners were aware and happy with what was happening"
- Traster 7y ago
  Here's a crazy idea - they could literally have just e-mailed grubhub asking "Hey, I'm reading through the contract you sent me, could you elaborate on clause X"
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Do you think that such obtuse terminology was accidental? I promise you it wasn't.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Would they have responded? I can't think of a single time when I had any chance to negotiate a TOS. Besides, even if they changed the onboarding process into an old-style contract negotiation, constantly having to deal with the devil, weeding out his sly contractual tricks, is a cost that can add up in terms of stress and man-hours. Most people would rather just choose business partners that aren't trying to trick them.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Traster 7y ago
      We're not talking about negotiating, not at all. You can absoluutely ask them what they mean by a clause and then chose not to sign. I find it kind of funny that people in this comment thread seem to think that Grubhub is something unique as if Uber hasn't been pushing their drivers into poverty for years now. Yes, the terms of the contract are likely to be onerous, that's kind of what these rent-seeking business models are all about.
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
If the TOS are unclear. Contacts favour the weaker non-drafting party.
loco5niner 7y ago
... according to GrubHub

dentemple 7y ago

Utilizing a TOS to exploit small businesses in a domain they have little expertise in. "GrubHub has done nothing wrong", indeed.

Traster 7y ago
Terms of service is the wrong term really. These restaurants signed a contract with another business to receive a service. They didn't read the contract. People running businesses shouldn't be signing contracts without at the very least reading the document carefully. These are absolutely not analagous to Terms of Service and businesses do not enjoy consumer protection laws. These contracts just could just as easily said "Grubhub has the right to offer 10% discounts on weekends" - it wouldn't even be unusual.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Why do you think "terms of service" is the wrong term? The article refers to it as such multiple times.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Terms of service usually apply to site visitors, not commercial partners.

throwaway2048 7y ago

If a TOS says that they get your firstborn son, but they settle instead for his arm, they aren't some kind of hero.

happytoexplain 7y ago

It's difficult to fathom how "you agreed to worse in the TOS" could be considered synonymous with "consideration" and "doing the right thing". It's frankly surreal to see a person suggest it.

dogecoinbase 7y ago

GrubHub has done nothing wrong... Whether or not this is the case is unrelated to what is permitted by law or contract.

iwantagrinder 7y ago

Terrifying how we have people taking the side of a TOS belonging to a shitty gig economy startup over small business owning human beings

JasonFruit 7y ago
If the human beings don't read the contacts they sign, they won't be owning a business for long. If GrubHub put it in writing, and another business didn't bother to figure out what it was signing, I can't see how it's GrubHub's fault.
- criddell 7y ago
  > If the human beings don't read the contacts they sign, they won't be owning a business for long. That's bullshit and you know it. They may be naive thinking an internet company like Grub Hub will act decently, but that doesn't make the restaurant operators wrong. It's too bad software developers and startup people don't have to go through a course on ethics to gain certification like professional engineers do.
  - JasonFruit 7y ago
    I really don't know that's bullshit. Please accept the idea that sometimes people might honestly disagree with you.
  - tdhoot 7y ago
    You mean it's too bad people aren't forced to feel the same way about issues as you do.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Nah, they mean too bad people are allowed to be abusive. Using your ability to outSEO your customer to capture the money that would otherwise go to them is abuse.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

jedimastert 7y ago

Go and ask the nearest 10 local-business restaurant owners what the sentence: > “may create, maintain and operate a microsite (“MS”) and obtain the URL for such MS on restaurant’s behalf.” means. I can guarantee most of them will have no idea what that means. Even if they knew what a "microsite" was, that could mean so many different things anyways. And before you say "then they should have asked a lawyer," 1) yes, but there may not be many lawyers who'd know what that meant either, and 2) there's no way restaurant owners could get that removed from the contract, so they'd basically have to sign anyways or remove a source of revenue. The point being, there's a wide gulf between "it was in the TOS" and "The owners were aware and happy with what was happening"

Traster 7y ago
Here's a crazy idea - they could literally have just e-mailed grubhub asking "Hey, I'm reading through the contract you sent me, could you elaborate on clause X"
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Do you think that such obtuse terminology was accidental? I promise you it wasn't.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Would they have responded? I can't think of a single time when I had any chance to negotiate a TOS. Besides, even if they changed the onboarding process into an old-style contract negotiation, constantly having to deal with the devil, weeding out his sly contractual tricks, is a cost that can add up in terms of stress and man-hours. Most people would rather just choose business partners that aren't trying to trick them.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Traster 7y ago
    We're not talking about negotiating, not at all. You can absoluutely ask them what they mean by a clause and then chose not to sign. I find it kind of funny that people in this comment thread seem to think that Grubhub is something unique as if Uber hasn't been pushing their drivers into poverty for years now. Yes, the terms of the contract are likely to be onerous, that's kind of what these rent-seeking business models are all about.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

If the TOS are unclear. Contacts favour the weaker non-drafting party.

loco5niner 7y ago

... according to GrubHub