3 ms·

The lawsuit [1] lists the following Factual Allegations: • Gruhub tells consumers it’s working cooperatively with restaurants • Grubhub decides to add unaffil

The lawsuit [1] lists the following Factual Allegations: • Gruhub tells consumers it’s working cooperatively with restaurants • Grubhub decides to add unaffiliated restaurants to its website and mobile apps without the restaurants’ permission • Grubhub’s unauthorized use of restaurants’ names and logos misleads consumers and harms restaurants • Restaurants have good reasons for choosing not to work with Grubhub ◦ Grubhub knows restaurants don’t want its business and tells drivers to disguise their affiliation with Grubhub ◦ Consumers continue to believe restaurants on Grubhub are working cooperatively with Grubhub ◦ Customer confusion leads to poor experiences that hurt restaurants’ hard-earned reputations ◦ Grubhub diverts and impairs demand for local restaurants • Grubhub knows it is harming restaurants and uses that harm to force restaurants into unwanted partnerships [1] https://www.classlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/Grubhub-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Gibbs-Law-Group.pdf?x76150 https://www.classlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/Grubhub-Cla...

judge2020 6y ago
Sounds like an open-and-shut case, but GH has the backing of SV lawyers so chances are it'll drag on for 3 years or end in settlement.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
A counter point is that an individual is free to hire someone to go and pick up food from a restaurant on their behalf and it does not make any difference to the restaurant. I suspect that what restaurants fear, though, is that Grubhub is trying to grab as much marketshare as possible then once they are in a position of strength they'll go and demand a commission from the restaurants, or else...
- staplers 6y ago
  an individual is free to hire someone to go and pick up food from a restaurant on their behalf They are commercially advertising names, logos, menus, etc not taking random orders from people.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    I think that this is a red herring unless they are doing so in a way that may make people think that they are the restaurant instead of an independent delivery agent, although the restaurant do allege that Grubhub is misrepresenting themselves. But yes, in principle they can get into trouble for using trademarks and logos without authorization (menus are fair game), although I suppose it is fair use to mention the names of the restaurants they can pick up food from. Going after them for that shows that they are not doing anything unlawful by running their intermediary service if this is the only thing the restaurants hope might stick.
- mikestew 6y ago
  That's not much of a counterpoint. In isolation, I would question whether this reply is aimed at the wrong comment as it doesn't seem to counterpoint much of anything in the parent comment as far as I can tell. It's not about someone coming to pick up food at a restaurant.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    > Grubhub decides to add unaffiliated restaurants to its website and mobile apps without the restaurants’ permission My counterpoint is that I don't believe that there is anything wrong with that or that permission is needed. Of course as long as there is no misrepresentation, which may indeed be an issue here. If you think otherwise I'm happy to hear your argument...
- jbay808 6y ago
  A counterpoint is that if you hire someone to order and pick up food for you, and they place the wrong order, you won't blame the restaurant for your assistant's mistake. GH is pretending to be the restaurant, so you get mad at the restaurant, not GH, when your order arrives late/cold/wrong. The restaurant didn't agree to this representation and you, the customer, weren't informed of it either.
burpee 6y ago
Interestingly, the damages can be calculated and definitely add up. Restaurants spend a lot of time and effort to build up loyal, lifetime customers that are created by giving them three exceptional experiences in a row. There is a lot of research on getting to three exceptional experiences in return for a lifetime customer. Those exceptional experiences require investments in staff and training and take a long time to pay off. Having GrubHub break that effort through misrepresentation they are destroying the lifetime value of those customers. If you apply that math to slightly more premium venues, GrubHub is easily costing restaurants hundreds of thousands in revenue through lost lifetime value. Restaurants are complex, fragile businesses, and this practice damages them at the core of their business. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

judge2020 6y ago

Sounds like an open-and-shut case, but GH has the backing of SV lawyers so chances are it'll drag on for 3 years or end in settlement.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

A counter point is that an individual is free to hire someone to go and pick up food from a restaurant on their behalf and it does not make any difference to the restaurant. I suspect that what restaurants fear, though, is that Grubhub is trying to grab as much marketshare as possible then once they are in a position of strength they'll go and demand a commission from the restaurants, or else...

staplers 6y ago
an individual is free to hire someone to go and pick up food from a restaurant on their behalf They are commercially advertising names, logos, menus, etc not taking random orders from people.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  I think that this is a red herring unless they are doing so in a way that may make people think that they are the restaurant instead of an independent delivery agent, although the restaurant do allege that Grubhub is misrepresenting themselves. But yes, in principle they can get into trouble for using trademarks and logos without authorization (menus are fair game), although I suppose it is fair use to mention the names of the restaurants they can pick up food from. Going after them for that shows that they are not doing anything unlawful by running their intermediary service if this is the only thing the restaurants hope might stick.
mikestew 6y ago
That's not much of a counterpoint. In isolation, I would question whether this reply is aimed at the wrong comment as it doesn't seem to counterpoint much of anything in the parent comment as far as I can tell. It's not about someone coming to pick up food at a restaurant.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  > Grubhub decides to add unaffiliated restaurants to its website and mobile apps without the restaurants’ permission My counterpoint is that I don't believe that there is anything wrong with that or that permission is needed. Of course as long as there is no misrepresentation, which may indeed be an issue here. If you think otherwise I'm happy to hear your argument...
jbay808 6y ago
A counterpoint is that if you hire someone to order and pick up food for you, and they place the wrong order, you won't blame the restaurant for your assistant's mistake. GH is pretending to be the restaurant, so you get mad at the restaurant, not GH, when your order arrives late/cold/wrong. The restaurant didn't agree to this representation and you, the customer, weren't informed of it either.

burpee 6y ago

Interestingly, the damages can be calculated and definitely add up. Restaurants spend a lot of time and effort to build up loyal, lifetime customers that are created by giving them three exceptional experiences in a row. There is a lot of research on getting to three exceptional experiences in return for a lifetime customer. Those exceptional experiences require investments in staff and training and take a long time to pay off. Having GrubHub break that effort through misrepresentation they are destroying the lifetime value of those customers. If you apply that math to slightly more premium venues, GrubHub is easily costing restaurants hundreds of thousands in revenue through lost lifetime value. Restaurants are complex, fragile businesses, and this practice damages them at the core of their business. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.