4 ms·

You could still do that without the app listing the restaurants without their permission. There is a clear exploitation happening here, I think it's right to f

by ehnto 6y ago

You could still do that without the app listing the restaurants without their permission. There is a clear exploitation happening here, I think it's right to find a way to stop it. We should get better at iterating on policy though, maybe this doesn't work out or stops some other kind of less exploitive business from operating and they need to adjust it.

darawk 6y ago
What is the exploitation exactly?
- throway1gjj 6y ago
  People making money by providing a valued service
- yeskia 6y ago
  Exploiting the customer my misrepresenting a restaurant as a partner when they are not.
- ehnto 6y ago
  The delivery platform represents a business relationship with a restaurant that doesn't exist, and uses it to pull value out of the services the restaurants offer. As a business you get to choose which other businesses you work with, and on what terms. In this case they haven't given the restaurant the opportunity to negotiate terms. It's new ground sure, but I think it's pretty clear that the delivery platform is a service provider to the restaurant and as such the restaurant should have some negotiating power. What if they want a cut of the delivery fee, or guaranteed delivery windows for their customers? Probably wouldn't get it, but that's a negotiation they should be able to have.
throwawaysea 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand the suggestion. Why shouldn't a courier service be allowed to list a business to get something from. That's like saying "people can't use mapping services". This doesn't feel like exploitation to me but maybe I don't understand your position fully.
- danielheath 6y ago
  A courier can still collect food. They can’t impersonate the restaurant anymore.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    The law prohibits a courier from being commissioned to place an order, collect it, and deliver it to you. It’s just criminalizing a perfectly legitimate form of arbitrage. The law isn’t about couriers impersonating restaurants either, because that’s just fraud and it’s already illegal. It’s just another example of a terrible law created at the behest of businesses that aren’t competent enough to keep up with changes in the market. But why would they bother when they can just seek a legislative solution?
    - ehnto 6y ago
      This is going to sound a bit curmudgeonly, but why should hospitality bend over to some tech middlemen? Not every industry needs to "innovate" their way into surviving the VC bubble's attempts to disrupt it. Hospitality is a fundamental service that's been provided for centuries, and is a cornerstone of the economy. Second to that, the law doesn't prohibit it, it just makes the delivery service seek an arrangement first. I am not terribly saddened by the fact that the delivery platforms have to do some groundwork instead of just web scraping a bunch of menus and making money off splitting all the risk between restaurants and customers.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        If these companies provide such a valuable service for people who can't get up from their computers to get or cook food, I'm sure restaurants will be lining up to sign up for their services.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        > This is going to sound a bit curmudgeonly, but why should hospitality bend over to some tech middlemen? Because that’s what their customers want, and providing something that their customers want should probably be one of the most important things for a business to do. The only genuine harm that can be caused to these businesses by the delivery companies, is if the delivery company is legitimately impersonating the restaurant. Which as I said, would already be illegal. The actual “harm” that this law addresses is somebody making a profit of providing a service that the restaurants think they deserve a cut of (just because?...). Hilariously, this type of arrangement is the most beneficial thing the restaurants could have. Because they’ll find if they’d try and make one of the arrangements with a company like UberEats, that what actually happens is the delivery company will be demanding a cut of their revenue instead. Criminalizing a type of customer based on whether they intend to on sell the product after purchase is just entirely stupid. It’s one of the many stupid laws we have that only seek to protect dead business models that consumers no longer want. Just like the DMCA and all of the car dealership laws we have.
roenxi 6y ago
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. Nothing there is talking about apps or listings.
- ehnto 6y ago
  That wording leaves room for personally arranged general couriers in my opinion, but that would end up getting defined in court at some point down the road.
  - Ekaros 6y ago
    I think key question here would be definition of "food delivery platform". Generic courier service or personal assistant or even taxi driver is likely not to qualify under such title.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      The linked bill is not verbose, it is effectively 4 paragraphs. > Food delivery platform” means an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer.

by ehnto 6y ago

darawk 6y ago

What is the exploitation exactly?

throway1gjj 6y ago
People making money by providing a valued service
yeskia 6y ago
Exploiting the customer my misrepresenting a restaurant as a partner when they are not.
ehnto 6y ago
The delivery platform represents a business relationship with a restaurant that doesn't exist, and uses it to pull value out of the services the restaurants offer. As a business you get to choose which other businesses you work with, and on what terms. In this case they haven't given the restaurant the opportunity to negotiate terms. It's new ground sure, but I think it's pretty clear that the delivery platform is a service provider to the restaurant and as such the restaurant should have some negotiating power. What if they want a cut of the delivery fee, or guaranteed delivery windows for their customers? Probably wouldn't get it, but that's a negotiation they should be able to have.

throwawaysea 6y ago

I'm not sure I understand the suggestion. Why shouldn't a courier service be allowed to list a business to get something from. That's like saying "people can't use mapping services". This doesn't feel like exploitation to me but maybe I don't understand your position fully.

danielheath 6y ago
A courier can still collect food. They can’t impersonate the restaurant anymore.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  The law prohibits a courier from being commissioned to place an order, collect it, and deliver it to you. It’s just criminalizing a perfectly legitimate form of arbitrage. The law isn’t about couriers impersonating restaurants either, because that’s just fraud and it’s already illegal. It’s just another example of a terrible law created at the behest of businesses that aren’t competent enough to keep up with changes in the market. But why would they bother when they can just seek a legislative solution?
  - ehnto 6y ago
    This is going to sound a bit curmudgeonly, but why should hospitality bend over to some tech middlemen? Not every industry needs to "innovate" their way into surviving the VC bubble's attempts to disrupt it. Hospitality is a fundamental service that's been provided for centuries, and is a cornerstone of the economy. Second to that, the law doesn't prohibit it, it just makes the delivery service seek an arrangement first. I am not terribly saddened by the fact that the delivery platforms have to do some groundwork instead of just web scraping a bunch of menus and making money off splitting all the risk between restaurants and customers.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      If these companies provide such a valuable service for people who can't get up from their computers to get or cook food, I'm sure restaurants will be lining up to sign up for their services.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      > This is going to sound a bit curmudgeonly, but why should hospitality bend over to some tech middlemen? Because that’s what their customers want, and providing something that their customers want should probably be one of the most important things for a business to do. The only genuine harm that can be caused to these businesses by the delivery companies, is if the delivery company is legitimately impersonating the restaurant. Which as I said, would already be illegal. The actual “harm” that this law addresses is somebody making a profit of providing a service that the restaurants think they deserve a cut of (just because?...). Hilariously, this type of arrangement is the most beneficial thing the restaurants could have. Because they’ll find if they’d try and make one of the arrangements with a company like UberEats, that what actually happens is the delivery company will be demanding a cut of their revenue instead. Criminalizing a type of customer based on whether they intend to on sell the product after purchase is just entirely stupid. It’s one of the many stupid laws we have that only seek to protect dead business models that consumers no longer want. Just like the DMCA and all of the car dealership laws we have.

roenxi 6y ago

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. Nothing there is talking about apps or listings.

ehnto 6y ago
That wording leaves room for personally arranged general couriers in my opinion, but that would end up getting defined in court at some point down the road.
- Ekaros 6y ago
  I think key question here would be definition of "food delivery platform". Generic courier service or personal assistant or even taxi driver is likely not to qualify under such title.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    The linked bill is not verbose, it is effectively 4 paragraphs. > Food delivery platform” means an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer.