6 ms·

Very cool update at the top of the article "NEW: As of May 14, 2020, New York City has passed a bill to ban the practice of third parties charging a fee for ph

Very cool update at the top of the article "NEW: As of May 14, 2020, New York City has passed a bill to ban the practice of third parties charging a fee for phone calls that don't end in a sale. You can read about that here." Glad to see reporting working successfully and highlighting abusive practices which then leads to changes in the law.

thursday0987 6y ago
> that don't end in a sale. i would bet 99%+ of all calls to restaurants from grubhub end in a sale, thus making this law meaningless. edit: why did i get downvoted for this? it adds to the discussion and it doesn't break any of HN's rule. are people just not happy about it or something? wtf.
- aaron-santos 6y ago
  Have any data to back up that claim?
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Probably not. That’s what makes it a bet. But if you’ve ever worked in a restaurant, it certainly seems logical.
    - xapata 6y ago
      "How late are you open tonight? Ok, thanks."
      - chc 6y ago
        It seems unlikely that there is a large contingent of people who Google a restaurant (which they must be doing in order to get Yelp's number), ignore the listing of hours right next to the number and call the restaurant to get the hours. I believe it happens, but I have a hard time believing that particular sequence of events accounts for even one call in 50.
        wilshire_nc 6y ago
        I do it all the time, google’s hours are often wrong, especially during covid.
        chc 6y ago
        To clarify: You're saying you do this more often than you order takeout? Especially during Covid? Because I explicitly said I believe it happens, just that it's a minority of calls.
        xapata 6y ago
        Yeah, I almost never order over the phone. I go in person to look at the menu.
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    What data would be required? A betting slip? (-:
- tw04 6y ago
  99%+? I can give you a case in point: we just tried to order Thai on Saturday from one of our favorite restaurants. They were short staffed in the kitchen and the wait time was over an hour... so we didn't order. I'm willing to bet a ton of other people did the same thing. Why should the Thai place have to PAY for people that declined to order?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > Why should the Thai place have to PAY for people that declined to order? They don’t, unless they agreed to those terms with the entity charging them. For example, if the agreement was to pay Yelp for all phone calls coming from Yelp’s website.
    - labawi 6y ago
      If it were a mutually negotiated contract, on equitable terms, then it would be a valid and very relevant point. Yelp is not exactly known for fair negotiation.
    - mbrameld 6y ago
      That's a little disingenuous. They don't HAVE to pay for those calls, but if Yelp's system decides an order took place then they get charged for the call. Based on some experimenting done recently by a podcast I listen to (can't remember which one right now), that decision boils down to "if the call was longer than 45 seconds and food was discussed, then an order took place". It's then up to the restaurant owner to reconcile and dispute any charged calls that didn't end in a sale. That means listening to the recording of every call that was charged and requesting a refund for each one that didn't end in an order.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > i would bet 99%+ of all calls to restaurants from grubhub end in a sale, thus making this law meaningless. How do you prove it ended in a sale though?
- azernik 6y ago
  Grubhub itself, in this article, claims only 35%.
  - impendia 6y ago
    After reading the article I don't feel particularly inclined to take Grubhub at their word.
    - azernik 6y ago
      Yeah, but if they're lying they'd lie on the high end, not the low end. If it's actually 99%, they'd say 99.999%. If it's actually 10%, they'd say 35%.
drummer 6y ago
The bill would make more sense if it was against companies like Yelp misleading both customers and restaurants that they are calling eachother directly.
- specialist 6y ago
  Do you know of any? I'm looking for model legislation. Basis for our own bill(s). I've scheduled a meeting with two of my representatives. One especially expects you to know what you're asking for (like homework assignment). I'll probably call my state's attorney general, fishing for ideas.
chadlavi 6y ago
How would Yelp know whether or not my call to a local restaurant ended in a sale without listening in on the phone call?
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  They are listening in on the phone call.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  They - Grubhub not Yelp - record every phone call, as the article points out, and even make it available to the restaurants, with personal details censored (unless of course their algorithms fuck up, and it does fuck up). So chances are if you ever called via Yelp into one of such Grubhub numbers, they got at least your voice and your food preferences (which might include medical/dietary needs) on record, maybe even your full details and CC number etc (depending on the quality of their automated censoring algorithms and on whether or not they store the original unredacted calls as well). “This call may be recorded to ensure awesomeness”, as their phone robot tells you :P

thursday0987 6y ago

> that don't end in a sale. i would bet 99%+ of all calls to restaurants from grubhub end in a sale, thus making this law meaningless. edit: why did i get downvoted for this? it adds to the discussion and it doesn't break any of HN's rule. are people just not happy about it or something? wtf.

aaron-santos 6y ago
Have any data to back up that claim?
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Probably not. That’s what makes it a bet. But if you’ve ever worked in a restaurant, it certainly seems logical.
  - xapata 6y ago
    "How late are you open tonight? Ok, thanks."
    - chc 6y ago
      It seems unlikely that there is a large contingent of people who Google a restaurant (which they must be doing in order to get Yelp's number), ignore the listing of hours right next to the number and call the restaurant to get the hours. I believe it happens, but I have a hard time believing that particular sequence of events accounts for even one call in 50.
      - wilshire_nc 6y ago
        I do it all the time, google’s hours are often wrong, especially during covid.
        chc 6y ago
        To clarify: You're saying you do this more often than you order takeout? Especially during Covid? Because I explicitly said I believe it happens, just that it's a minority of calls.
        xapata 6y ago
        Yeah, I almost never order over the phone. I go in person to look at the menu.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  What data would be required? A betting slip? (-:
tw04 6y ago
99%+? I can give you a case in point: we just tried to order Thai on Saturday from one of our favorite restaurants. They were short staffed in the kitchen and the wait time was over an hour... so we didn't order. I'm willing to bet a ton of other people did the same thing. Why should the Thai place have to PAY for people that declined to order?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > Why should the Thai place have to PAY for people that declined to order? They don’t, unless they agreed to those terms with the entity charging them. For example, if the agreement was to pay Yelp for all phone calls coming from Yelp’s website.
  - labawi 6y ago
    If it were a mutually negotiated contract, on equitable terms, then it would be a valid and very relevant point. Yelp is not exactly known for fair negotiation.
  - mbrameld 6y ago
    That's a little disingenuous. They don't HAVE to pay for those calls, but if Yelp's system decides an order took place then they get charged for the call. Based on some experimenting done recently by a podcast I listen to (can't remember which one right now), that decision boils down to "if the call was longer than 45 seconds and food was discussed, then an order took place". It's then up to the restaurant owner to reconcile and dispute any charged calls that didn't end in a sale. That means listening to the recording of every call that was charged and requesting a refund for each one that didn't end in an order.
whimsicalism 6y ago
> i would bet 99%+ of all calls to restaurants from grubhub end in a sale, thus making this law meaningless. How do you prove it ended in a sale though?
azernik 6y ago
Grubhub itself, in this article, claims only 35%.
- impendia 6y ago
  After reading the article I don't feel particularly inclined to take Grubhub at their word.
  - azernik 6y ago
    Yeah, but if they're lying they'd lie on the high end, not the low end. If it's actually 99%, they'd say 99.999%. If it's actually 10%, they'd say 35%.

drummer 6y ago

The bill would make more sense if it was against companies like Yelp misleading both customers and restaurants that they are calling eachother directly.

specialist 6y ago
Do you know of any? I'm looking for model legislation. Basis for our own bill(s). I've scheduled a meeting with two of my representatives. One especially expects you to know what you're asking for (like homework assignment). I'll probably call my state's attorney general, fishing for ideas.

chadlavi 6y ago

How would Yelp know whether or not my call to a local restaurant ended in a sale without listening in on the phone call?

throwaway201103 6y ago
They are listening in on the phone call.
rndgermandude 6y ago
They - Grubhub not Yelp - record every phone call, as the article points out, and even make it available to the restaurants, with personal details censored (unless of course their algorithms fuck up, and it does fuck up). So chances are if you ever called via Yelp into one of such Grubhub numbers, they got at least your voice and your food preferences (which might include medical/dietary needs) on record, maybe even your full details and CC number etc (depending on the quality of their automated censoring algorithms and on whether or not they store the original unredacted calls as well). “This call may be recorded to ensure awesomeness”, as their phone robot tells you :P