5 ms·

Trading under another brands name -- by listing them as an ordering place with an unofficial dark kitchen associated in your app -- seems like the most egregiou

by s_dev 6y ago

Trading under another brands name -- by listing them as an ordering place with an unofficial dark kitchen associated in your app -- seems like the most egregious form of trade mark infringement. Why aren't GrubHub concerned about the legal reprecussions of this?

Nextgrid 6y ago
Because "justice" in the US is not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about who's got the most money and resources to pursue a lawsuit.
- lallysingh 6y ago
  At some point the question of "who is actually right, and who is actually wrong" has to be answered through the work of people. Those people have to be paid. For criminal work, that's taxpayers footing the bill -- sometimes just for one side. For civil, the government provides a judge and the rest has to be paid for privately. It's not awful, but it can be so inefficient that it can break down due to resource exhaustion, or worse, a vector for abuse.
mrguyorama 6y ago
>Why aren't GrubHub concerned about the legal reprecussions of this? When is the last time a company was SERIOUSLY threatened by the repercussions of doing something illegal in the US? When was the last time a company was fined/sued out of existence for something they were doing to average people?
- sharkweek 6y ago
  All I know is I’m still waiting for my Equifax settlement check. Any day now, I’m sure!
  - the_only_law 6y ago
    Heh, in the state I used to live in there was a huge controversy regarding a power company, corrupt politicians, amassive infrastructure project failure who's cost was passed on the the consumer, and strange mergers . People were promised compensation and the the three cent checks eventually trickled in.
    - robflynn 6y ago
      Same here, my area's energy company increased their rate sto build a new nuclear plant, spent some of the money, and then never finished it... Years later I think I got a check for $2.67 for that.
      - the_only_law 6y ago
        Curious now if we lived in the same area lol or if this is just some sad coincidence.
  - mgkimsal 6y ago
    I got a mortgage in 2005. Company had problems with fraudulent stuff and class action suit brought against them. Outside of whatever their behavior was that triggered the class action, they had poor service to me as an individual, so I'm not terribly surprised they probably cut many other corners (ethically/legally/etc). Anyway... I got my class action settlement checks yesterday. $71 and $74. w00t. EDIT: this was more in reaction to "still waiting on those Equifax checks" comment. Just give it another 10 years...
    - pc86 6y ago
      Congrats on the free money. It's pretty well known class action suits serve only to enrichen counsel, and in rare occasions may have a side effect of marginally disrupting a business's cash flow.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      I agree that class actual settlements are Usually underwhelming, but were you specifically (even in expectation/probabilistically) hurt by those wrongs, and if so, what do you think is the more accurate figure for the harm you faced?
      - nogabebop23 6y ago
        >> class actual settlements are Usually underwhelming not for the firms that bring them: millions in fees & billing, ranging from the upfront certification efforts (riskier) to the payment & settlement (at this stage, risk-free and very lucrative)
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        I preface this by saying I’m not ok with how this is. I’m just explaining the reasons “class action” lawsuits are the way they are. ---- That’s because the purpose of “class action” lawsuits isn’t to provide relief to the harmed class (despite what many think). It’s to punish the company (financially) for their wrongdoing. It doesn’t always work out that way,[a] but that’s the idea. The reason (supposedly) for not getting relief is that the injured class members can still file their own cases against the company with their own lawyers. But then you need to pay out-of-pocket for that lawyer and hope the judge not only sides with you, but awards cost in addition to the claimed damages. Of course, there’s always the perverse incentive of the lawyers working for the class to take a bigger cut for themselves (“why would I take a $5 million payday when I could get $15 million instead?”). There’s also a push to settle because then they work less, but still get their payday. [a]: Especially if the payout is less than they made harming the class
- packetlost 6y ago
  It happens all the time, but usually to small businesses and startups, not established businesses with lots of money and lawyers.
- lastofthemojito 6y ago
  I know there's been a lot of criticism of the details of the settlement, but Purdue Pharma was sued out of existence by the DOJ last week.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    I don't know if I would count that as any sort of a win, given how the primary owners acquired $11 billion, then were fined only $225 million. I guess crime pays out at 98%. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/sacklers-who-made-11-billion-off-opioid-crisis-to-pay-225-million-in-damages/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/sacklers-who-made-11...
    - lastofthemojito 6y ago
      I think the outrage around the Sacklers and the money they kept from sales of opioids is justified. That said, I think you're arguing that if Purdue Pharma were to continue pushing opioids and the Sacklers continued to profit handsomely, that would be equivalent to them stopping now? Stopping them now isn't any sort of win?
    - hajile 6y ago
      Purdue actually paid 8 billion out of 11 billion profit. That seems reasonable as tons of people using their drugs did have a legitimate need. The 235 Million in personal civil liabilities PLUS their losses from owning so much of the company. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-global-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-opioid https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... > 8 billion payout on 11 billion profit. That seems reasonable. Not all of the people using their drugs were being prescribed without good reason. > Purdue Pharma has agreed to plead guilty in federal court in New Jersey to a three-count felony information charging it with one count of dual-object conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and two counts of conspiracy to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The criminal resolution includes the largest penalties ever levied against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, including a criminal fine of $3.544 billion and an additional $2 billion in criminal forfeiture. For the $2 billion forfeiture, the company will pay $225 million on the effective date of the bankruptcy, and, as further explained below, the department is willing to credit the value conferred by the company to State and local governments under the department’s anti-piling on and coordination policy. Purdue has also agreed to a civil settlement in the amount of $2.8 billion to resolve its civil liability under the False Claims Act. Separately, the Sackler family has agreed to pay $225 million in damages to resolve its civil False Claims Act liability.
- Cyclone_ 6y ago
  I believe there's been for profit colleges that were sued out of existence
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
How many mom and pop restaurants do you know of who have the extra financial capital to find a lawyer to sue over an issue like this against a company as well-funded as grubhub or doordash?
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  How many lawyers do you know who would love to represent the restaurants in general as a class, that they may make class-action-lawsuit money? Well, I don't know any either, but if there's a good solid case then it only takes one.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Isn't that exactly what the OP says is being done?
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >How many mom and pop restaurants do you know of who have the extra financial capital to find a lawyer to sue over an issue like this against a company as well-funded as grubhub or doordash? It's much, much worse than that. many of those restaurants thrived for years on 5-10% profit margins. Grubhub comes along and charges them 12-30% "commissions" just for forwarding orders and processing credit cards. Forget about paying a lawyer -- many of these restaurants are out of business because of this.
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    What's the mechanism that forces restaurants to partner with these food delivery services? Threat of competition if they don't?
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >What's the mechanism that forces restaurants to partner with these food delivery services? Threat of competition if they don't? The mechanism is the ubiquity of folks using "apps" instead of contacting restaurants directly. It used to be in NYC that every time a restaurant made a delivery, they'd leave paper menus for the residents. Now, you either go through an "app" (read: an inferior interface to a website) or a search engine to find restaurants. Aside from the fact that a low/mid-priced restaurant likely doesn't have the tech expertise to set up an online ordering platform, or the financial resources to purchase a point-of-sale system that includes such functionality or to contract with a developer/hosting provider to do so, getting on these sites may seem to be the only way they can maintain their business. And since GrubHub, et. al use SEO spam to get themselves at the top of search listings, have contracts that forbid restaurants from charging less if orders don't use them, and then take all the profit (and then some) from the bulk of transactions, the deck is stacked against such restaurants. I suppose you could argue that if a restaurant can't compete in the market, it should fail. And most do. The average lifespan of a restaurant is just five years, and the vast majority fail within one year[0]. But those aren't the restaurants I'm talking about. I'm talking about neighborhood institutions that have been open for decades being forced to close because all their profit and then some is being taken by services like GrubHub that aren't even providing delivery services, just listing on their site (which runs from ~12-30% on every single order). The insertion of the middle man here, taking up to a third of the revenue on every single order which provides just a listing service (they actually charge the customer for delivery service if the restaurant doesn't provide it -- not the norm here in NYC), has put many wonderful restaurants out of business. This increases prices, reduces the diversity and choice of cuisine and quality, without providing any value, except in listings and credit card processing. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/restaurants/2018/08/09/highest-grossing-restaurants-in-america/37227589/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/restaurants/2018/08/09/...
abernard1 6y ago
> Why aren't GrubHub concerned about the legal reprecussions of this? Because the company is firmly in Team Blue, and they control the House right now. This is the same organization where the CEO told his employees that if they voted for Trump, they should resign.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  Prosecution is handled by the executive branch, not the lower house of the legislative branch.
  - abernard1 6y ago
    Except that what they're doing is just barely legal, so it would require legislative policy changes. But on that note, if someone from the Executive branch wants to try to prosecute GrubHub for this, I'm all for it. Highly unethical at the very least.
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      I'm no expert on this particular issue, but I would guess that the FTC has the authority to impose regulation against things like this. If so, then, if everything were functioning well, there wouldn't necessarily be any need to change laws. It's also possible that it's already a tort, or can relatively quickly be established as tort by the outcome of a lawsuit like this. In general, Congress isn't where you go first; Congress is where you go when all else fails and you're willing to take your chances putting a decision like this to a bunch of people whose paychecks are, to an approximation, paid by the companies with the deepest pockets.
- tartoran 6y ago
  I really think this abusive behavior practiced by big companies extends beyond party lines and would have a hard time believing otherwise. If it only were that easy and these type of abuses would simply be caught when the other party takes control of the house..
MangoCoffee 6y ago
breaking laws/operate in the gray area is often touted as "silicon valley disruption" from AirBnB, Uber...etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
prezjordan 6y ago
Mind elaborating on where the dark kitchen comes into play?
londons_explore 6y ago
If I sell you some 2nd hand Lego bricks, the same logic aplies. I am not affiliated with Lego, yet the thing I am selling was legitimately made by Lego a while ago. When I describe what I'm selling, I clearly say I am offering lego bricks for sale. Here grubhub seems to be doing the exact same thing with food. Hard to see how one can be illegal while the other isn't.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  No, this situation would only be analogous if you listed yourself as “Official LEGO(TM) Store” and had a link to LEGO.com on your Amazon profile, and you had “contact LEGO Sales by phone” but the listed phone number was actually your private line, and LEGO did not give you permission for any of this. The obtuseness in these comments is really something else.
- NohatCoder 6y ago
  If you register officiallegostore.com, put the Lego logo front and center, and start selling Lego, used or otherwise, I can assure you that you will get in trouble.

by s_dev 6y ago

Nextgrid 6y ago

Because "justice" in the US is not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about who's got the most money and resources to pursue a lawsuit.

lallysingh 6y ago
At some point the question of "who is actually right, and who is actually wrong" has to be answered through the work of people. Those people have to be paid. For criminal work, that's taxpayers footing the bill -- sometimes just for one side. For civil, the government provides a judge and the rest has to be paid for privately. It's not awful, but it can be so inefficient that it can break down due to resource exhaustion, or worse, a vector for abuse.

mrguyorama 6y ago

>Why aren't GrubHub concerned about the legal reprecussions of this? When is the last time a company was SERIOUSLY threatened by the repercussions of doing something illegal in the US? When was the last time a company was fined/sued out of existence for something they were doing to average people?

sharkweek 6y ago
All I know is I’m still waiting for my Equifax settlement check. Any day now, I’m sure!
- the_only_law 6y ago
  Heh, in the state I used to live in there was a huge controversy regarding a power company, corrupt politicians, amassive infrastructure project failure who's cost was passed on the the consumer, and strange mergers . People were promised compensation and the the three cent checks eventually trickled in.
  - robflynn 6y ago
    Same here, my area's energy company increased their rate sto build a new nuclear plant, spent some of the money, and then never finished it... Years later I think I got a check for $2.67 for that.
    - the_only_law 6y ago
      Curious now if we lived in the same area lol or if this is just some sad coincidence.
- mgkimsal 6y ago
  I got a mortgage in 2005. Company had problems with fraudulent stuff and class action suit brought against them. Outside of whatever their behavior was that triggered the class action, they had poor service to me as an individual, so I'm not terribly surprised they probably cut many other corners (ethically/legally/etc). Anyway... I got my class action settlement checks yesterday. $71 and $74. w00t. EDIT: this was more in reaction to "still waiting on those Equifax checks" comment. Just give it another 10 years...
  - pc86 6y ago
    Congrats on the free money. It's pretty well known class action suits serve only to enrichen counsel, and in rare occasions may have a side effect of marginally disrupting a business's cash flow.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    I agree that class actual settlements are Usually underwhelming, but were you specifically (even in expectation/probabilistically) hurt by those wrongs, and if so, what do you think is the more accurate figure for the harm you faced?
    - nogabebop23 6y ago
      >> class actual settlements are Usually underwhelming not for the firms that bring them: millions in fees & billing, ranging from the upfront certification efforts (riskier) to the payment & settlement (at this stage, risk-free and very lucrative)
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        I preface this by saying I’m not ok with how this is. I’m just explaining the reasons “class action” lawsuits are the way they are. ---- That’s because the purpose of “class action” lawsuits isn’t to provide relief to the harmed class (despite what many think). It’s to punish the company (financially) for their wrongdoing. It doesn’t always work out that way,[a] but that’s the idea. The reason (supposedly) for not getting relief is that the injured class members can still file their own cases against the company with their own lawyers. But then you need to pay out-of-pocket for that lawyer and hope the judge not only sides with you, but awards cost in addition to the claimed damages. Of course, there’s always the perverse incentive of the lawyers working for the class to take a bigger cut for themselves (“why would I take a $5 million payday when I could get $15 million instead?”). There’s also a push to settle because then they work less, but still get their payday. [a]: Especially if the payout is less than they made harming the class
packetlost 6y ago
It happens all the time, but usually to small businesses and startups, not established businesses with lots of money and lawyers.
lastofthemojito 6y ago
I know there's been a lot of criticism of the details of the settlement, but Purdue Pharma was sued out of existence by the DOJ last week.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I don't know if I would count that as any sort of a win, given how the primary owners acquired $11 billion, then were fined only $225 million. I guess crime pays out at 98%. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/sacklers-who-made-11-billion-off-opioid-crisis-to-pay-225-million-in-damages/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/sacklers-who-made-11...
  - lastofthemojito 6y ago
    I think the outrage around the Sacklers and the money they kept from sales of opioids is justified. That said, I think you're arguing that if Purdue Pharma were to continue pushing opioids and the Sacklers continued to profit handsomely, that would be equivalent to them stopping now? Stopping them now isn't any sort of win?
  - hajile 6y ago
    Purdue actually paid 8 billion out of 11 billion profit. That seems reasonable as tons of people using their drugs did have a legitimate need. The 235 Million in personal civil liabilities PLUS their losses from owning so much of the company. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-global-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-opioid https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... > 8 billion payout on 11 billion profit. That seems reasonable. Not all of the people using their drugs were being prescribed without good reason. > Purdue Pharma has agreed to plead guilty in federal court in New Jersey to a three-count felony information charging it with one count of dual-object conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and two counts of conspiracy to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The criminal resolution includes the largest penalties ever levied against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, including a criminal fine of $3.544 billion and an additional $2 billion in criminal forfeiture. For the $2 billion forfeiture, the company will pay $225 million on the effective date of the bankruptcy, and, as further explained below, the department is willing to credit the value conferred by the company to State and local governments under the department’s anti-piling on and coordination policy. Purdue has also agreed to a civil settlement in the amount of $2.8 billion to resolve its civil liability under the False Claims Act. Separately, the Sackler family has agreed to pay $225 million in damages to resolve its civil False Claims Act liability.
Cyclone_ 6y ago
I believe there's been for profit colleges that were sued out of existence

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

How many mom and pop restaurants do you know of who have the extra financial capital to find a lawyer to sue over an issue like this against a company as well-funded as grubhub or doordash?

fennecfoxen 6y ago
How many lawyers do you know who would love to represent the restaurants in general as a class, that they may make class-action-lawsuit money? Well, I don't know any either, but if there's a good solid case then it only takes one.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what the OP says is being done?
nobody9999 6y ago
>How many mom and pop restaurants do you know of who have the extra financial capital to find a lawyer to sue over an issue like this against a company as well-funded as grubhub or doordash? It's much, much worse than that. many of those restaurants thrived for years on 5-10% profit margins. Grubhub comes along and charges them 12-30% "commissions" just for forwarding orders and processing credit cards. Forget about paying a lawyer -- many of these restaurants are out of business because of this.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  What's the mechanism that forces restaurants to partner with these food delivery services? Threat of competition if they don't?
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >What's the mechanism that forces restaurants to partner with these food delivery services? Threat of competition if they don't? The mechanism is the ubiquity of folks using "apps" instead of contacting restaurants directly. It used to be in NYC that every time a restaurant made a delivery, they'd leave paper menus for the residents. Now, you either go through an "app" (read: an inferior interface to a website) or a search engine to find restaurants. Aside from the fact that a low/mid-priced restaurant likely doesn't have the tech expertise to set up an online ordering platform, or the financial resources to purchase a point-of-sale system that includes such functionality or to contract with a developer/hosting provider to do so, getting on these sites may seem to be the only way they can maintain their business. And since GrubHub, et. al use SEO spam to get themselves at the top of search listings, have contracts that forbid restaurants from charging less if orders don't use them, and then take all the profit (and then some) from the bulk of transactions, the deck is stacked against such restaurants. I suppose you could argue that if a restaurant can't compete in the market, it should fail. And most do. The average lifespan of a restaurant is just five years, and the vast majority fail within one year[0]. But those aren't the restaurants I'm talking about. I'm talking about neighborhood institutions that have been open for decades being forced to close because all their profit and then some is being taken by services like GrubHub that aren't even providing delivery services, just listing on their site (which runs from ~12-30% on every single order). The insertion of the middle man here, taking up to a third of the revenue on every single order which provides just a listing service (they actually charge the customer for delivery service if the restaurant doesn't provide it -- not the norm here in NYC), has put many wonderful restaurants out of business. This increases prices, reduces the diversity and choice of cuisine and quality, without providing any value, except in listings and credit card processing. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/restaurants/2018/08/09/highest-grossing-restaurants-in-america/37227589/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/restaurants/2018/08/09/...

abernard1 6y ago

> Why aren't GrubHub concerned about the legal reprecussions of this? Because the company is firmly in Team Blue, and they control the House right now. This is the same organization where the CEO told his employees that if they voted for Trump, they should resign.

mumblemumble 6y ago
Prosecution is handled by the executive branch, not the lower house of the legislative branch.
- abernard1 6y ago
  Except that what they're doing is just barely legal, so it would require legislative policy changes. But on that note, if someone from the Executive branch wants to try to prosecute GrubHub for this, I'm all for it. Highly unethical at the very least.
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    I'm no expert on this particular issue, but I would guess that the FTC has the authority to impose regulation against things like this. If so, then, if everything were functioning well, there wouldn't necessarily be any need to change laws. It's also possible that it's already a tort, or can relatively quickly be established as tort by the outcome of a lawsuit like this. In general, Congress isn't where you go first; Congress is where you go when all else fails and you're willing to take your chances putting a decision like this to a bunch of people whose paychecks are, to an approximation, paid by the companies with the deepest pockets.
tartoran 6y ago
I really think this abusive behavior practiced by big companies extends beyond party lines and would have a hard time believing otherwise. If it only were that easy and these type of abuses would simply be caught when the other party takes control of the house..

MangoCoffee 6y ago

breaking laws/operate in the gray area is often touted as "silicon valley disruption" from AirBnB, Uber...etc.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

prezjordan 6y ago

Mind elaborating on where the dark kitchen comes into play?

londons_explore 6y ago

If I sell you some 2nd hand Lego bricks, the same logic aplies. I am not affiliated with Lego, yet the thing I am selling was legitimately made by Lego a while ago. When I describe what I'm selling, I clearly say I am offering lego bricks for sale. Here grubhub seems to be doing the exact same thing with food. Hard to see how one can be illegal while the other isn't.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
No, this situation would only be analogous if you listed yourself as “Official LEGO(TM) Store” and had a link to LEGO.com on your Amazon profile, and you had “contact LEGO Sales by phone” but the listed phone number was actually your private line, and LEGO did not give you permission for any of this. The obtuseness in these comments is really something else.
NohatCoder 6y ago
If you register officiallegostore.com, put the Lego logo front and center, and start selling Lego, used or otherwise, I can assure you that you will get in trouble.