5 ms·

The problem is not sending a courier. You can use Apps to send someone there without a problem. The problem is them impersonating the restaurant and giving cus

by ratww 6y ago

The problem is not sending a courier. You can use Apps to send someone there without a problem. The problem is them impersonating the restaurant and giving customers the impression that the restaurant is offering the delivery service themselves.

throwawaysea 6y ago
Someone else posted the below excerpt of the law that also prohibits couriers (who are not impersonating anyone) unless they have permission from the restaurant. That seems like a ridiculous restriction to me. > 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.
- ratww 6y ago
  I don't think sending someone to perform a task is the same as taking an order, though. The restaurant is still the one taking the order for the food itself in the case of a courier. Also the law seem to only include "food delivery platforms", which exclude couriers. (Of course, I might be wrong, but it seems that the intent of the law is to stop impersonation, not couriers).
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Why can't I pay someone to place an order and pick it up for me? Can't I have someone go shop on my behalf at non-restaurant businesses? And if so, isn't it reasonable that a menu of options be shown with items and the costs? I agree that there should be transparency about who is delivering the food, there should be no impersonation of the restaurant, no false listing of phone numbers, and so on. But allowing restaurants to deny a courier without prior agreement seems like a government overreach.
    - ratww 6y ago
      I think you misunderstood my reply: I don't think the law is forbidding someone making an order on your behalf and picking it up for you. I doubt it will affect normal courier services. What I believe the law is forbidding is the lack of transparency, the false listing of phone numbers and taking orders on behalf of someone else. EDIT: Btw, I'm not downvoting you as I can't downvote replies. I have upvoted to counter it.
GauntletWizard 6y ago
I disagree with this law, like I've disagreed with many laws before it: the creation of a specific law implies that what came before was not fraud. It was fraud. Prosecute it as such. Offering to courrier food from place A to B, including ordering the food from place A, should not be illegal. Pretending to be A to engage in that business is fraud, because you pretended to be A. It's that simple. This law is a giveaway to the companies that have already engaged in fraud.
- ratww 6y ago
  Good point, I agree with you.
foobar1962 6y ago
The problem is that if food isn't handled correctly it makes people sick. This law is about food safety.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
roenxi 6y ago
Unless there is some rather serious context I'm missing - and as I said in another comment - the linked bill says: > 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. I don't think you can use Apps to send someone there without a problem. They have to get 'express authorisation' from the restaurant before they can accept your order. That is silly.
- ratww 6y ago
  As I answered to another poster, I believe the keyword here is "take orders". You can't take orders on behalf of others, but you can freely arrange for someone in an app to "make an order" for you and then fetch the meal. That's my interpretation. Of course it could/should be better worded, though. EDIT: Also, someone also mentioned that courier apps are not "food delivery platforms", so the first few words of the paragraph you quoted already excludes them.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    So the argument is I should accept this silly law because I can get around it by handling all the coordination between Uber and the Restaurant to make it clear to both that I was the one who placed the order and Uber is acting strictly as a courier service with no extras? That is silly. Uber can do the ordering and I can enjoy my evening without phoning people up.
    - ratww 6y ago
      Uber Eats or Uber Taxi? Uber Eats doesn't engage in the practices this law is trying to curb since they already have agreements in place with the restaurants (AFAIK), so you won't have to phone up anyone if you use Uber Eats. If you're taking about Uber the Taxi app, or some courier service, then this law doesn't apply to them since they're not "food delivery platforms", and you can just ask them to order on your behalf without phoning anyone. EDIT: Btw I'm not making any argument in favour or against the law, I'm just doing my best and trying to interpret it.
lkbm 6y ago
Sure would be nice if the law mentioned something about impersonating the restaurant rather than merely adding restrictions on who can be a courier.

by ratww 6y ago

throwawaysea 6y ago

Someone else posted the below excerpt of the law that also prohibits couriers (who are not impersonating anyone) unless they have permission from the restaurant. That seems like a ridiculous restriction to me. > 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.

ratww 6y ago
I don't think sending someone to perform a task is the same as taking an order, though. The restaurant is still the one taking the order for the food itself in the case of a courier. Also the law seem to only include "food delivery platforms", which exclude couriers. (Of course, I might be wrong, but it seems that the intent of the law is to stop impersonation, not couriers).
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Why can't I pay someone to place an order and pick it up for me? Can't I have someone go shop on my behalf at non-restaurant businesses? And if so, isn't it reasonable that a menu of options be shown with items and the costs? I agree that there should be transparency about who is delivering the food, there should be no impersonation of the restaurant, no false listing of phone numbers, and so on. But allowing restaurants to deny a courier without prior agreement seems like a government overreach.
  - ratww 6y ago
    I think you misunderstood my reply: I don't think the law is forbidding someone making an order on your behalf and picking it up for you. I doubt it will affect normal courier services. What I believe the law is forbidding is the lack of transparency, the false listing of phone numbers and taking orders on behalf of someone else. EDIT: Btw, I'm not downvoting you as I can't downvote replies. I have upvoted to counter it.

GauntletWizard 6y ago

I disagree with this law, like I've disagreed with many laws before it: the creation of a specific law implies that what came before was not fraud. It was fraud. Prosecute it as such. Offering to courrier food from place A to B, including ordering the food from place A, should not be illegal. Pretending to be A to engage in that business is fraud, because you pretended to be A. It's that simple. This law is a giveaway to the companies that have already engaged in fraud.

ratww 6y ago
Good point, I agree with you.

foobar1962 6y ago

The problem is that if food isn't handled correctly it makes people sick. This law is about food safety.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 6y ago

Unless there is some rather serious context I'm missing - and as I said in another comment - the linked bill says: > 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. I don't think you can use Apps to send someone there without a problem. They have to get 'express authorisation' from the restaurant before they can accept your order. That is silly.

ratww 6y ago
As I answered to another poster, I believe the keyword here is "take orders". You can't take orders on behalf of others, but you can freely arrange for someone in an app to "make an order" for you and then fetch the meal. That's my interpretation. Of course it could/should be better worded, though. EDIT: Also, someone also mentioned that courier apps are not "food delivery platforms", so the first few words of the paragraph you quoted already excludes them.
- roenxi 6y ago
  So the argument is I should accept this silly law because I can get around it by handling all the coordination between Uber and the Restaurant to make it clear to both that I was the one who placed the order and Uber is acting strictly as a courier service with no extras? That is silly. Uber can do the ordering and I can enjoy my evening without phoning people up.
  - ratww 6y ago
    Uber Eats or Uber Taxi? Uber Eats doesn't engage in the practices this law is trying to curb since they already have agreements in place with the restaurants (AFAIK), so you won't have to phone up anyone if you use Uber Eats. If you're taking about Uber the Taxi app, or some courier service, then this law doesn't apply to them since they're not "food delivery platforms", and you can just ask them to order on your behalf without phoning anyone. EDIT: Btw I'm not making any argument in favour or against the law, I'm just doing my best and trying to interpret it.

lkbm 6y ago

Sure would be nice if the law mentioned something about impersonating the restaurant rather than merely adding restrictions on who can be a courier.