7 ms·
> The restaurant can opt out of this, but they never asked for the service in the first place so it's kinda shitty. That's what this article is about. If the d
by doc_gunthrop 6y ago
> The restaurant can opt out of this, but they never asked for the service in the first place so it's kinda shitty. That's what this article is about.
If the driver places the order without making it clear to the restauranteur that they are the middleman company (UberEats, Doordash, etc.) then the opt-out clause is meaningless. You can't opt out of something you're never aware of.
- nogabebop23 6y agoyes - this is not "opt out", it's not even "default opt-in" like the telecoms got spanked for a few years ago, because they have no pre-existing relationship. It's fraudulent representation.
- ghthrowaway99 6y agoWhile I agree, restaurants do tend to pick up on this over time because (more issues with Place & Pay) people will complain to the restaurant about food being cold/slow not realizing that the restaurant isn't even involved in the delivery. Sometimes the delivery people make it quite obvious (e.g. drivers are given GH branded credit cards to pay with)
- fbelzile 6y ago> restaurants do tend to pick up on this [fraud] over time Fixed that for you.
- brlewis 6y ago> people will complain to the restaurant about food being cold/slow not realizing that the restaurant isn't even involved in the delivery By using their name in commerce, restaurants have a trademark. People complaining to the restaurant about delivery shows that consumers mistook the Place & Pay vendor for the restaurant. This is proof that the trademark was infringed. I don't see how Place & Pay could survive a court case, or even prolong one.