3 ms·
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 (A
by 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.
- roenxi 6y ago> Uber Eats doesn't engage in the practices... Doesn't change the fact that the law is silly. Every time I leave the house I wear closed in shoes. A law forbidding me from leaving the house unless I'm wearing closed in shoes would be silly. This is a law that is arbitrarily preventing people from doing something that is perfectly reasonable - acting on behalf of a third party to order food. If legislators want to ban something objectionable they should ban it directly, not indirectly through making it illegal to do something reasonable.
- ratww 6y agoThe general agreement here is that the law was made because Doordash/Postmates were impersonating restaurants without authorization from them and taking orders in their behalf, so it's not exactly similar to your shoes examples. Most people find the impersonation and lack of transparent unreasonable. Whether the law is the best tool to fix it or whether it will have side effects is what's in debate, but the main intention of the law seems pretty clear to everyone.