4 ms·

That’s quite ... crazy. Be restaurant. Be on Deliveroo. Be getting low margins because of high fees. So basically you can’t decide not to use Deliveroo any mo

by tomp 7y ago

That’s quite ... crazy. Be restaurant. Be on Deliveroo. Be getting low margins because of high fees. So basically you can’t decide not to use Deliveroo any more, to improve margina (“secure an exonomic advantage”). I mean, you can cancel Deliveroo, but only as long as you’re not “inducing a breach of their contract”. So only a matter of time before Deliveroo writes a contract “we’re obligated to deliver food for you from said restaurant”.

olau 7y ago
I would imagine that if you contract with Deliveroo, they have some terms that say that you need to give notice when cancelling? I don't know Deliveroo, but I think a better analogy would be if you suddenly, even though it is not causing you trouble, denied access to someone picking up food that you didn't contract with, with the full knowledge that the someone would be in big trouble with their customers.
XCabbage 7y ago
Choosing not to use a middleman any more so that you can secure higher margins sounds like about clearest example of a "legitimate business reason" imaginable. The purpose of the act is to immediately increase your margins, not to hurt Deliveroo because you don't want their competition. That's very different from the case in question, where LinkedIn's motive for cutting off hiQ's access is to inflict damage on hiQ because they are a potential competitor.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
davvolun 7y ago
IANAL, but I think you're misunderstanding "without a legitimate business reason to do so" "Be Restaurant" blocking Deliveroo because they can't continue operating with the loss of revenue due to high fees is a legitimate business reason. "Be Restaurant" blocking Deliveroo 2: Electric Boogaloo because I don't like their owner, but continuing to allow Deliveroo access would be, presumably, disallowed. Also there's nothing stopping "Be Restaurant" from offering an exclusive delivery contract to Deliveroo and forcing Deliveroo 2 out, or requiring a minimum fee for all delivery services, Deliveroo and Deliveroo 2 included. Of course, I think this is all in a very different area from a restaurant; we're talking about a service provided on the internet. I believe LinkedIn has many, many other recourses here, but, as I see it, the courts are just telling them, this aint it chief.

by tomp 7y ago

olau 7y ago

I would imagine that if you contract with Deliveroo, they have some terms that say that you need to give notice when cancelling? I don't know Deliveroo, but I think a better analogy would be if you suddenly, even though it is not causing you trouble, denied access to someone picking up food that you didn't contract with, with the full knowledge that the someone would be in big trouble with their customers.

XCabbage 7y ago

Choosing not to use a middleman any more so that you can secure higher margins sounds like about clearest example of a "legitimate business reason" imaginable. The purpose of the act is to immediately increase your margins, not to hurt Deliveroo because you don't want their competition. That's very different from the case in question, where LinkedIn's motive for cutting off hiQ's access is to inflict damage on hiQ because they are a potential competitor.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

davvolun 7y ago

IANAL, but I think you're misunderstanding "without a legitimate business reason to do so" "Be Restaurant" blocking Deliveroo because they can't continue operating with the loss of revenue due to high fees is a legitimate business reason. "Be Restaurant" blocking Deliveroo 2: Electric Boogaloo because I don't like their owner, but continuing to allow Deliveroo access would be, presumably, disallowed. Also there's nothing stopping "Be Restaurant" from offering an exclusive delivery contract to Deliveroo and forcing Deliveroo 2 out, or requiring a minimum fee for all delivery services, Deliveroo and Deliveroo 2 included. Of course, I think this is all in a very different area from a restaurant; we're talking about a service provided on the internet. I believe LinkedIn has many, many other recourses here, but, as I see it, the courts are just telling them, this aint it chief.