5 ms·

The law is not just about impersonation, it says the platform can't arrange for delivery of food without having an agreement with a restaurant. So if it's not i

The law is not just about impersonation, it says the platform can't arrange for delivery of food without having an agreement with a restaurant. So if it's not impersonating anybody, and just orders food on your behalf with you knowing it's a middleman, that would still violate the law, if I understood correctly. I think that wouldn't normally be illegal because it's not generally illegal to do things on others' behalf (there would need to be misrepresentation of some sort), so if they want to ban that they would need a law. This is the entirety of the law, by the way: > 22599. A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility.

mehrdadn 6y ago
I'm not even sure it's buying on anyone's "behalf" either. But rather just buying and then reselling goods.
supernova87a 6y ago
I think the intention though, is to stop say a Doordash from listing a restaurant's menu on its (DD's) website and making it seem like the restaurant is consenting to having delivery of its food with whatever margin DD feels like adding on top of it. (Also by the way, shadier practices too, like hijaking/publishing a false restaurant phone number that diverts to DD instead of the restaurant.)
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Yes, hence, impersonation
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    The issue here isn't "did delivery apps sometimes impersonate restaurants" (which is why you think this law is redundant), but rather "does this law ban things other than impersonation" (yes, and hence why others are saying a violation of the law need not constitute impersonation).
    - ummonk 6y ago
      The point is that the stated reason for the law is impersonation, which is already illegal, but under the guise of cracking down on impersonation of restaurants, the law does much more.
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        > The point is that the stated reason for the law is impersonation Is it? I don't see anything in the text about impersonation.
ehnto 6y ago
It's not terribly difficult to put together the arrangements with businesses who are amenable. DD and friends are just annoyed they'll have to do some minor business relations work instead of drawing value out of a business and then palming customer support off to them, while they never knew they were ever part of the transaction in the first place. It puts the restaurants back in a position of control over their own business operations, I think that's fine. If you want to work with the business to draw value from them, you'll have to arrange it. People are looking at this like it's the customer versus the restaurants, it's not, it's about mediating the relationship between two commercial operations and the vast majority of law is about just that kind of thing.

mehrdadn 6y ago

I'm not even sure it's buying on anyone's "behalf" either. But rather just buying and then reselling goods.

supernova87a 6y ago

I think the intention though, is to stop say a Doordash from listing a restaurant's menu on its (DD's) website and making it seem like the restaurant is consenting to having delivery of its food with whatever margin DD feels like adding on top of it. (Also by the way, shadier practices too, like hijaking/publishing a false restaurant phone number that diverts to DD instead of the restaurant.)

raverbashing 6y ago
Yes, hence, impersonation
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  The issue here isn't "did delivery apps sometimes impersonate restaurants" (which is why you think this law is redundant), but rather "does this law ban things other than impersonation" (yes, and hence why others are saying a violation of the law need not constitute impersonation).
  - ummonk 6y ago
    The point is that the stated reason for the law is impersonation, which is already illegal, but under the guise of cracking down on impersonation of restaurants, the law does much more.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      > The point is that the stated reason for the law is impersonation Is it? I don't see anything in the text about impersonation.

ehnto 6y ago

It's not terribly difficult to put together the arrangements with businesses who are amenable. DD and friends are just annoyed they'll have to do some minor business relations work instead of drawing value out of a business and then palming customer support off to them, while they never knew they were ever part of the transaction in the first place. It puts the restaurants back in a position of control over their own business operations, I think that's fine. If you want to work with the business to draw value from them, you'll have to arrange it. People are looking at this like it's the customer versus the restaurants, it's not, it's about mediating the relationship between two commercial operations and the vast majority of law is about just that kind of thing.