4 ms·

It seems like it would depend on who's initiating the action. While the restaurant preparing "partial" pizzas to ship to coordinated orders is obviously fraud,

by ethbro 6y ago

It seems like it would depend on who's initiating the action. While the restaurant preparing "partial" pizzas to ship to coordinated orders is obviously fraud, I'm not so sure "Asking the restaurant owner about their costs, then independently ordering a large number of pizzas" qualifies. It's not your responsibility if Doordash has shit code and auditing. And given VC-onomics, it's not even clear how you would be certain this isn't "operating as intended."

hnick 6y ago
> While the restaurant preparing "partial" pizzas to ship to coordinated orders is obviously fraud Does Doordash allow customer menu modification requests? "No cheese, no tomato sauce, no onion" etc. That would also then fall under shit code and auditing :)
Dylan16807 6y ago
> While the restaurant preparing "partial" pizzas to ship to coordinated orders is obviously fraud How so? They're making the pizzas the way the customer wants them. The 'objective' tastiness is none of the delivery middleman's business. And there's nothing wrong with offering a bad pizza for $24, as long as the customer knows what they're getting.
- Beldin 6y ago
  Well, if the restaurant reimburses the customer after, it probably would become a problem. Way around this: private owner places his own orders as customer, pockets profits as owner. That might be legitimate - but remember: if you take legal advice from the Internet, you get what you paid for.
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    Why does it matter if the owner is reimbursing their non-owning customers? Restaurants do that all the time.
    - ethbro 6y ago
      (IANAL) My gut says coordination would be be evidence of both (a) premeditated intent & (b) knowledge that actions constituted fraud. One could place a personal order (or 100) innocently. One looks substantially less innocent when coordinating with a third party to place orders and transfer money around. While that speaks to the severity of the crime (if one were proven), as you noted, it doesn't in any way impact whether that behavior is a crime at all.
      - hannasanarion 6y ago
        But who's defrauding who? If the doordash website says I can buy a dough pizza for $19, then doordash has to get me a dough pizza for $19 when I buy one. No fraud is happening, doordash is fulfilling the requirements of the contract they make with all their customers. If anything, the one who's committing fraud is doordash, because they're putting in "takeout" orders with the restaurant and presenting them as "delivery" orders to the customer.
        ethbro 6y ago
        In the example from TFA, Doordash says you can buy a pizza for $16 and charges you $16. The restaurant menu price is $24, and Doordash pays $24 for the pizza. That's... the starting place. (As screwy as it is) Now, if I order a dough pizza for $16, in coordination with the restaurant, and Doordash pays $24 to the restaurant, and the restaurant gives me a dough pizza, and then the restaurant makes it worth my while, what do we have? Doordash has been paid $16, and spent $24 + (cost of delivery) = (-) SoftBank money The restaurant has been paid $24 and spent ~$1 (cost of dough pizza [1]) = ~$23 profit (minus labor) I paid $16 (let's ignore tip). The restaurant reimburses me for that (me: $0, restaurant: $7) to make it worth my while, and then splits profits with me (me: $3.50, restaurant: $3.50). So at the end, Doordash: -$8 - delivery cost, restaurant: $3.50, me: $3.50. It's the reimbursement of the customer that seems... suspect. The way to ethically monetize this would be for restaurants to target Doordash misprices, and "sell" coupons (a food box, containing only a paper coupon), good for future food orders directly through the restaurants. Then encourage all their customers to buy as much as possible. [1] We'll say we return and recycle the boxes, being environmentally conscious citizens
- fancyfredbot 6y ago
  This depends on whether you think the pizza restaurant's customer is doordash. You could make a good argument that this was the case. The restaurant sells to doordash, who paid for a pizza with toppings.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Doordash is buying it, but I think it makes more sense as "a pizza for Bob" than just "a pizza". I think it would be strange to ignore everything Bob says if he calls in asking for the pepperoni to be on one side. Though none of this matters if there's a 'special instructions' box. Have a code word for bread pizza.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by ethbro 6y ago

hnick 6y ago

> While the restaurant preparing "partial" pizzas to ship to coordinated orders is obviously fraud Does Doordash allow customer menu modification requests? "No cheese, no tomato sauce, no onion" etc. That would also then fall under shit code and auditing :)

Dylan16807 6y ago

> While the restaurant preparing "partial" pizzas to ship to coordinated orders is obviously fraud How so? They're making the pizzas the way the customer wants them. The 'objective' tastiness is none of the delivery middleman's business. And there's nothing wrong with offering a bad pizza for $24, as long as the customer knows what they're getting.

Beldin 6y ago
Well, if the restaurant reimburses the customer after, it probably would become a problem. Way around this: private owner places his own orders as customer, pockets profits as owner. That might be legitimate - but remember: if you take legal advice from the Internet, you get what you paid for.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  Why does it matter if the owner is reimbursing their non-owning customers? Restaurants do that all the time.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    (IANAL) My gut says coordination would be be evidence of both (a) premeditated intent & (b) knowledge that actions constituted fraud. One could place a personal order (or 100) innocently. One looks substantially less innocent when coordinating with a third party to place orders and transfer money around. While that speaks to the severity of the crime (if one were proven), as you noted, it doesn't in any way impact whether that behavior is a crime at all.
    - hannasanarion 6y ago
      But who's defrauding who? If the doordash website says I can buy a dough pizza for $19, then doordash has to get me a dough pizza for $19 when I buy one. No fraud is happening, doordash is fulfilling the requirements of the contract they make with all their customers. If anything, the one who's committing fraud is doordash, because they're putting in "takeout" orders with the restaurant and presenting them as "delivery" orders to the customer.
      - ethbro 6y ago
        In the example from TFA, Doordash says you can buy a pizza for $16 and charges you $16. The restaurant menu price is $24, and Doordash pays $24 for the pizza. That's... the starting place. (As screwy as it is) Now, if I order a dough pizza for $16, in coordination with the restaurant, and Doordash pays $24 to the restaurant, and the restaurant gives me a dough pizza, and then the restaurant makes it worth my while, what do we have? Doordash has been paid $16, and spent $24 + (cost of delivery) = (-) SoftBank money The restaurant has been paid $24 and spent ~$1 (cost of dough pizza [1]) = ~$23 profit (minus labor) I paid $16 (let's ignore tip). The restaurant reimburses me for that (me: $0, restaurant: $7) to make it worth my while, and then splits profits with me (me: $3.50, restaurant: $3.50). So at the end, Doordash: -$8 - delivery cost, restaurant: $3.50, me: $3.50. It's the reimbursement of the customer that seems... suspect. The way to ethically monetize this would be for restaurants to target Doordash misprices, and "sell" coupons (a food box, containing only a paper coupon), good for future food orders directly through the restaurants. Then encourage all their customers to buy as much as possible. [1] We'll say we return and recycle the boxes, being environmentally conscious citizens
fancyfredbot 6y ago
This depends on whether you think the pizza restaurant's customer is doordash. You could make a good argument that this was the case. The restaurant sells to doordash, who paid for a pizza with toppings.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Doordash is buying it, but I think it makes more sense as "a pizza for Bob" than just "a pizza". I think it would be strange to ignore everything Bob says if he calls in asking for the pepperoni to be on one side. Though none of this matters if there's a 'special instructions' box. Have a code word for bread pizza.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]