25 ms·

This is undeniably a good thing if you put yourself in the shoes of the restaurant. Imagine if someone went around impersonating your business online, leveragi

This is undeniably a good thing if you put yourself in the shoes of the restaurant. Imagine if someone went around impersonating your business online, leveraging the good name you have built for yourself over the decades. They create ads offering your expert development services, ostensibly competing with your existing website, but with intentionally slashed pricing and a ‘creatively’ misrepresented offering (aka growth hacking). Then they subcontract the job to some crappy outsourcing firm that bungles it, but who cares, they got their cut and you signed the TOS. Now bad reviews are piling up online about the bad experiences people had with your business, your reputation is destroyed, and your business is next. I know it’s not a perfect analogy but try to empathize with the restaurants here.

mysterydip 6y ago
This exact thing is happening to one of my favorite local pizza places. Very frustrating for them.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  They're frustrated by free advertising and new customers? The smart thing to do is krep taking the business and just put a leaflet in the pizza box/whatever saying ordering directly is cheaper/faster, if that's the case.
  - danso 6y ago
    Maybe there's more involved than getting "free advertising and new customers". As in, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    Perhaps frustrated that someone is doing business as them using their copyright and trademarks? These companies are basically commiting fraud, and any bad experience reflexts on the restaurant, not the delivery company. Sometimes the restaurant doesn't know that something is being ordered via another channel and cannot add sufh a slip.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    That “free” advertising is competing with your own channels (without the 30% commission). Also there are uncountable reports of them fucking up the delivery itself by not having appropriate containers, when the restaurant they are dealing doesn’t actually do deliveries. That will lose you customers and hurt your brand.
    - tw25601814 6y ago
      If it's such a bad deal, why is the restaurant continuing to service orders from the food delivery platform? It's not like they don't know who's placing the order.
    - wolco2 6y ago
      Perhaps add a 30% markup fee for any grubhub customer or ubereats customer based on payment info or familiar faces/cars.
    - cleak 6y ago
      I’m confused. How is GrubHub getting a 30% commission out of restaurants that don’t actively partner with them?
      - nirushiv 6y ago
        I think they mean that other partnered restaurants get 30%. I could be misreading it though.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        They inflate menu prices and add additional service and delivery fees. You end up spending $50 on a meal that should be $30, and if you were shopping by amount of money spent (as many people are) then the net result is $30 going to the restaurant instead of all $50 you were willing to spend.
        cleak 6y ago
        Sure, but that’s not actually a commission from the restaurant. The restaurant earns the same amount regardless of if it was true takeout or GrubHub (for folks that haven’t opted in to being partners).
  - vectorbunny 6y ago
    Frustrated by people having terrible customer service experiences associated with their business but completely out of their control.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    > The smart thing to do is krep taking I think the smart thing to do is to trust that people who have spent years doing a thing have more insight into the topic than a random internet forum participant.
ummonk 6y ago
Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Because many restaurant owners don't even think about trademarks, or their names are too "generic" to be allowed to trademark. The usual exception are the franchise operations (mcdonalds, BK, subway, kfc, ...) because these are thought from the start to be exclusive.
- Causality1 6y ago
  Because civil laws only protect people rich enough to hire lawyers.
  - weego 6y ago
    I don't know why this is getting down voted, its absolutely naive to assume this isn't how it plays out in the real world.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It’s getting downvoted because it seems to be phrased in a deliberately inflammatory way. You can (and others downthread have) express the same idea that many restaurants can’t afford the expense in a manner more likely to lead to productive discussion.
  - Ensorceled 6y ago
    This should not be down voted. The idea that a popular little family owned and operated Indian restaurant named "Bombay Curry" and still reeling from COVID-19 restrictions can some how sue Skip the Diehes or Uber Eats for Trademark infringement is absolutely ludicrous.
    - jeltz 6y ago
      Yeah, Uber is a company which is involved in legal battles with governments all over the world. I am sure they would make it a real pain to sue them. The idea of restaurants prusuing trademark cases against Uber is ridiculous.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
You are skipping quite a few steps here by jumping to "impersonating a business online", which I suspect is already illegal. This bill says that it would be illegal to pick food on behalf of someone else without the restaurant's agreement (if you're an online platform). The is no question of dishonesty or impersonation, just of offering this service. This is quite an extreme restriction, IMHO, and seems to be a kneejerk and simplistic response to a perceived problem. On the other hand, the problem of online reviews is separate and should be addressed specifically, IMHO. At the moment it's the wild West and a breeding ground for defamation. Maybe regulating this should get more attention from lawmakers (though I realise that in the US the 1st Amendment may make this difficult).
- XorNot 6y ago
  Why? The practice involved is in response to the absolute garbage of misrepresentation of a restaurant's telephone number to be intercepted by your own call centre's.
  - ozim 6y ago
    Because if would like to have a honest delivery service that is not faking some restaurant, with the new law you will not be able to provide such service. It will be a lot more hassle to pick up something.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Ekaros 6y ago
      I don't think it is anyway unreasonable for such service to come to agreement with the restaurant. And absolutely beneficial for both parties.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        The question is whether it should be required. If a restaurant welcomes takeaway orders then whether you order and collect in person or hire someone to do it on your behalf is irrelevant. That's why I think this bill is ill-thought-out. If there are shady practices taking place then they should be dealt with with existing legislation and, if needed, with new legislation specifically targeting these practices. Instead, I suspect this will only restrict services and competition, which ultimately won't be beneficial for consumers and restaurants alike.
ghaff 6y ago
The misrepresentation would seem to be the big thing. Someone, let's call them Joe, publishes a list of restaurants online with links to their menus and offers to deliver for the price of the order with tip plus a $10 delivery fee. And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. That seems pretty unobjectionable. And how would the restaurant even know? [ADDED: Subject of course to any health regulations that might apply to food delivery.] But that, of course, is not what any of these services do. There is still an argument that some foods just aren't a good match for delivery and, disclaimer or not, some consumers will still tend to blame Sally's Piping Hot Burgers when their burger arrives soggy and cold (or, worse, because of mishandling someone gets sick) rather than think that maybe they should have just gone and picked it up themselves or just not gotten burger take-out. So Sally should maybe have a right to refuse to sell to anyone other than the end consumer. But that seems trickier.
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  > And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. This isn’t actually clear. GrubHub’s about page: “ Grubhub is a leading online and mobile food-ordering and delivery marketplace with the largest and most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. ” This tells me as a customer that the restaurant is a consenting partner. This is a lie. EDIT: a commentor below had issue with my use of the word lie here. To clarify, I meant that this is not a clear disclaimer.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    > But that, of course, is not what any of these services do.
  - loceng 6y ago
    No, you're misinterpreting it - they don't claim all of the restaurants are partners, just that they have the most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. Edit: -4 downvotes so far for highlighting a person's bad logic - good start to the New Year for critical thinking on HN; I'll assume they're projecting their anger for the topic onto me, their emotion overriding their logic.
bitlevel 6y ago
Totally agree. And how about this: If you get food poisoning from a restaurant, you deal directly with them to resolve. If the food has been delivered by a 3rd party, what rights to resolve would you then have? Restaurants can simply state that the food was tainted after it left them, delivery firms can state the food from the restaurant was bad, etc etc.
- learc83 6y ago
  I agree with the sentiment. But you basically have no recourse if you get food poisoning from a restaurant. Unless it’s a mass event, there’s no way for you to prove it was the restaurant, and even if you could prove it, your damages aren’t likely to be enough to sue.
  - newman8r 6y ago
    I had an old roommate try to sue in-n-out after getting severe food poisoning. It actually went to court - the in-n-out attorney completely destroyed him, he was outgunned. They showed receipts for thousands of people who ate there that day and that there weren't any other cases reported. Reporting food poisoning if it ever happens to you (even if minor) could be the difference between someone else being believed of being shut down.
    - dghughes 6y ago
      >They showed receipts for thousands of people who ate there that day and that there weren't any other cases reported. It makes you wonder: did the lawyer call each one of those thousands of people, did anyone get sick but didn't realize it was the burger, time could be an issue too maybe a few lettuce leaves had listeria on them but it only grew to levels after a certain time and temperature.
      - jiofih 6y ago
        If that’s the case and they did not consistently fail at food safety practices, just a one-off, then we can consider it an accident like any other and the restaurant is not culpable.
rattray 6y ago
IDK, this seems more like a mixed-bag to me on account of being opt-in instead of opt-out. Absolutely I agree that businesses should be able to easily opt out of being listed on a given delivery platform if/when it causes problems for them. But on the flip side, I've observed a lot of restaurant owners not having the time, energy, or know-how to set up even basic online things that could really boost their business. I would expect that many restaurants really benefited from Doordash adding their menu to their website without their knowledge (even if some have, in net, suffered). Going straight to opt-in seems like it could hurt some businesses. Not to mention, of course, any new entrants! This law will make it much harder to compete with "the next Doordash".
- brandall10 6y ago
  If they don’t have the time/skill/capital to handle online business on their own, then they can set up a partnership with these companies. That is a minimal effort, no? The key thing is this deals with a predatory practice.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > But on the flip side, I've observed a lot of restaurant owners not having the time, energy, or know-how to set up even basic online things that could really boost their business. Isn't part of being a successful business knowing where to put your energy as a business owner? You're saying that restaurants don't necessarily have the ability to make the best decisions for their business, therefore they should be able to opt-out and not opt-in. The flip side of this argument is that these apps can cause undeserved damage to a restaurant's reputation. How do you know what's best for restaurants? You're arguing that the onus should be on the restaurant to opt out whenever a delivery platform causes problems, but the onus should be on the delivery platforms to create a product that restaurants, not just consumers, want to use.
  - _huayra_ 6y ago
    This is already the case with bigger companies. As is the usual case with a lot "disruptive" firms, that "growth hacking" comes from exploiting some regulatory loophole that no one else has seen yet (e.g. most things related to the "sharing economy"). I'm pretty sure if I just declared myself to be a sales partner (idk the term?) of Cisco, IBM, Oracle, etc and just resold their gear, I'd be in hot water legally because my actions would reflect on them.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Was impersonation legal in California before this law?
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  No, but this protects small restaurant owners regardless if they are a legal entity with trademarks to protect.
m3kw9 6y ago
If my resturant didn’t sign up for a middle man, don’t force yourself in between. That seems reasonable
- listenallyall 6y ago
  Careful there... Apple (or any manufacturer) could say the same thing about Ebay. Any sports team or band could say it about Stubhub. Nike could say it about StockX.
  - chongli 6y ago
    I think we can carve out an exception specifically for food and food services. Why? Because of the extremely limited shelf life of hot food. That’s what sets it apart from your other examples.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Actually, Stubhub is a little complicated in that, for example, sports season tickets can have conditions attached to them. Stubhub has lost a couple of court cases around that.
    - tw25601814 6y ago
      The law does not set any health standards on food delivery platforms. Restaurants will have to sign up with each delivery platform, and/or delivery platforms will have to sign up each restaurant. Either way, the net effect will be to protect the extant food delivery platforms from new competition.
    - zackkitzmiller 6y ago
      Lots of items have incredibly short shelf-lives as well. I spent nearly a decade in the live event ticketing industry so I'll focus on that. A significant precent of ticket sales are last minute. A friend tagging a long or someone waiting for prices to drop. Food spoils and looses quality fast, but so do good from many industries. I think carving out an exception for food is potentially a slippery slope. It would probably be better to carve out exceptions for any item that could potentially be worthless after some amount of time. Live event tickets, food, travel, etc.
VBprogrammer 6y ago
More pondering than a serious question; would it make a difference if they didn't rely on the original business name and reputation? For example, if I created a fictitious "Lucky Dog Chinese" and in fact delivered food provided by the "Lucky Cat Chinese" would that be disagreeable? Almost like dropshipping for restaurants.
- Animats 6y ago
  California law wouldn't prohibit that. The next step is "ghost kitchens".[1] These are commissary facilities that advertise as restaurants but only deliver. The ousted Uber CEO tried to get into that business, but not much seems to have come of "Cloud Kitchens". Some of these seem to be new ways to get people to work for too little. The delivery service is just the landlord; they rent people who want to run a restaurant a kitchen space, sell them raw materials, and deliver the product. Doordash has one in Redwood City. They have Rooster and Rice, and Chick-Fil-A franchisees. That's near me, and it was sad to see gig drivers waiting for their specific order to be ready. If they were employees being paid for waiting time, the next driver would get the next order, to minimize paid waiting. [1] https://www.fermag.com/articles/9618-7-Ghost-Kitchens-You-May-Not-Know-About/ https://www.fermag.com/articles/9618-7-Ghost-Kitchens-You-Ma...
  - amyjess 6y ago
    There are a number of these ghost kitchens in my area available on Uber Eats, some of which are pretty good. Some of the best Nashville hot chicken I've ever had has been delivered from a place simply titled "Nashville Hot Chicken Shack". Googling them, I couldn't find anything about them. Not even putting in the street address gives me anything. But I did find out the address belonged to another restaurant, which let me realize that they were a ghost kitchen using that restaurant's kitchen facilities. And then I noticed in the app that the restaurant's name was mentioned in small print, which finally confirmed it.
CydeWeys 6y ago
It's also undeniably a good thing for customers as well. Using an unexpected intermediary in a transaction is a terrible experience. If I see a restaurant on GrubHub then I want to know that that restaurant wants orders coming through GrubHub. Otherwise, I'll be much better off calling up the restaurant directly. As it stands, I currently have to use Google Maps as my restaurant portal, using the restaurant's website or phone number to figure out how to place orders. Only if their website is or links out to a 3rd party like GrubHub do I then actually use GrubHub. But if GrubHub only showed restaurants that were actually delegating their delivery to GrubHub, then I could use it as a portal. Right now it's not trustworthy for that purpose.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Honestly, I had thought that it was a partnership. For one, only a rather small subset of the restaurants in my area show up on Grubhub. I imagined that outsourcing the delivery function of their business would be a net win.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Around where I live, the listed restaurants seem to be mostly chain fast food restaurants. The local pizza place I order from doesn't seem to be listed nor are most of the other local take-out restaurants I would recognize the names of from driving by. I've looked because one of my credit cards gave me a free DoorDash subscription and there's literally nothing I'm interested in.
anticristi 6y ago
I don't understand why trademarks are insufficient to prevent this. Why didn't restaurants file a class action lawsuit against food delivery services to stop misusing their names? I think this law is great, but it kind of legitimises impersonation unless explicitly banned by law.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  I think this is just a practical matter: the legal system is not as accessible as you might hope it is.
dheera 6y ago
Not to mention the delivery apps dishonestly jack up listed prices, as seen on these 2 screenshots taken within the same hour: https://i.imgur.com/2HVXhvZ.png https://i.imgur.com/2HVXhvZ.png Then they have the guts to charge: - delivery fees ON TOP of that - then a service fee (WTF? you just charged for delivery service) - then a CA driver benefits of exactly $2.00 (why is it an exact whole number? is every cent of that going toward health insurance?) - small order fee - rush hour fee ...
- cleak 6y ago
  The key issue around all of this is transparency. Itemize costs, be clear how much money goes to each party, and state up front if you’re not affiliated.
tempsy 6y ago
In n Out has been a notable hold out from delivery apps for this reason.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rsync 6y ago
"This is undeniably a good thing if you put yourself in the shoes of the restaurant." Maybe. I have no idea. What I do know is, the following statement is 1A protected free speech: If you pay me enough money, I will drive to the Novato In'N'Out and buy a cheeseburger and deliver it to you. I offer this delivery service to anyone who wishes to negotiate my (extremely high) delivery rates. This is posted in a public place (is a listing) and I have no relationship with In'N'Out and no plans to establish one. Now what ?
- johnmaguire2013 6y ago
  Apple is a private company, not a public entity. AFAIK, your "free speech" is not protected here.
  - cleak 6y ago
    Companies are people too.
- ghaff 6y ago
  You are clearly not a "food delivery platform" which this explicitly concerns. Obviously you can pay people to run errands for you, including picking up food and people can advertise their services.
  - rsync 6y ago
    Yes, of course that is the case but a "real" delivery service is only one or two contortions away from "publishing" their "listings" in a way that is just like what I wrote.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  This law only applies to online businesses. So while this effectively stops businesses from providing this service without permission it does not prevent what you describe.
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  Then you’ll be breaking the law, as I understand it. Not every statement is protected under free speech. If a private pilot asks his friend if she wants to go on a trip and split costs, that’s legal. If he posts the offer in a public place, it’s illegal. There is a ton of precedent for this type of restriction of speech.
shadowgovt 6y ago
What if I put myself in the shoes of the consumer? Now if a restaurant doesn't offer delivery, can I still get delivery?
imtringued 6y ago
Yeah it's extremely weird. Nintendo will call lawyers on you if there is even a hint of a trade mark violation yet when restaurants are directly being defrauded there is no recourse.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  The difference being: Nintendo has entire buildings full of lawyers just waiting for the go-ahead to crush out your life with lawsuits, while Pam's House Of Burgers has trouble making payroll every week and has never hired a lawyer since its founding.
- megameter 6y ago
  We're at the onset of some kind of disruption of this norm around IP: If it's possible to automatically detect copyright violations, it's also within reach to give users tools that procedurally generate an infininum of infringing content, none of which can be litigated profitably by the corporation("swarm of bees" effects).
TeeMassive 6y ago
> Imagine if someone went around impersonating your business online, leveraging the good name you have built for yourself over the decades. They create ads offering your expert development services, ostensibly competing with your existing website, but with intentionally slashed pricing and a ‘creatively’ misrepresented offering (aka growth hacking). Isn't using someone else's brand to yours already illegal?
splaytreemap 6y ago
It's very much deniable. This now forces restaurants to sign an agreement and start paying a commission. Previously, they got a free delivery service at no cost to them. Now they either have to pay or lose business. This is bad for the majority of restaurants.
- Diesel555 6y ago
  While I do agree with the original post, I don't like the verbiage "undeniably a good thing" as they are saying there is no denying that what I am saying is true. And to think you know everything about an issue means you aren't willing to listen to different view points. Nothing I ever say is undeniable.
rossjudson 6y ago
Oddly, that bill says nothing about impersonating restaurants online. Looks like the delivery services are still free to squat on restaurant web space and perhaps helpfully point out that delivery is not available (when in fact it is, just not from that service). That's an interesting way of forcing an owner into "agreeing" with the delivery service.
reddog 6y ago
I seem to remember that back in the sweet usetobe before the internet one of the big catsup companies (Heinz? Hunts?) started suing restaurants for the common practice of watering down their catsup bottles that sat at the customer table. The catsup company was worried about people forming a negative intial impression of their product based on the watered down bottles. The restraunts argument was that once they bought the catsup bottle they were free to do what they wanted with it. Don't know how that suit came out but this seems like the same deal here.

mysterydip 6y ago

This exact thing is happening to one of my favorite local pizza places. Very frustrating for them.

jimmaswell 6y ago
They're frustrated by free advertising and new customers? The smart thing to do is krep taking the business and just put a leaflet in the pizza box/whatever saying ordering directly is cheaper/faster, if that's the case.
- danso 6y ago
  Maybe there's more involved than getting "free advertising and new customers". As in, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  Perhaps frustrated that someone is doing business as them using their copyright and trademarks? These companies are basically commiting fraud, and any bad experience reflexts on the restaurant, not the delivery company. Sometimes the restaurant doesn't know that something is being ordered via another channel and cannot add sufh a slip.
- jiofih 6y ago
  That “free” advertising is competing with your own channels (without the 30% commission). Also there are uncountable reports of them fucking up the delivery itself by not having appropriate containers, when the restaurant they are dealing doesn’t actually do deliveries. That will lose you customers and hurt your brand.
  - tw25601814 6y ago
    If it's such a bad deal, why is the restaurant continuing to service orders from the food delivery platform? It's not like they don't know who's placing the order.
  - wolco2 6y ago
    Perhaps add a 30% markup fee for any grubhub customer or ubereats customer based on payment info or familiar faces/cars.
  - cleak 6y ago
    I’m confused. How is GrubHub getting a 30% commission out of restaurants that don’t actively partner with them?
    - nirushiv 6y ago
      I think they mean that other partnered restaurants get 30%. I could be misreading it though.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      They inflate menu prices and add additional service and delivery fees. You end up spending $50 on a meal that should be $30, and if you were shopping by amount of money spent (as many people are) then the net result is $30 going to the restaurant instead of all $50 you were willing to spend.
      - cleak 6y ago
        Sure, but that’s not actually a commission from the restaurant. The restaurant earns the same amount regardless of if it was true takeout or GrubHub (for folks that haven’t opted in to being partners).
- vectorbunny 6y ago
  Frustrated by people having terrible customer service experiences associated with their business but completely out of their control.
- wpietri 6y ago
  > The smart thing to do is krep taking I think the smart thing to do is to trust that people who have spent years doing a thing have more insight into the topic than a random internet forum participant.

ummonk 6y ago

Why does that require anything other than enforcement of existing trademark law?

mschuster91 6y ago
Because many restaurant owners don't even think about trademarks, or their names are too "generic" to be allowed to trademark. The usual exception are the franchise operations (mcdonalds, BK, subway, kfc, ...) because these are thought from the start to be exclusive.
Causality1 6y ago
Because civil laws only protect people rich enough to hire lawyers.
- weego 6y ago
  I don't know why this is getting down voted, its absolutely naive to assume this isn't how it plays out in the real world.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It’s getting downvoted because it seems to be phrased in a deliberately inflammatory way. You can (and others downthread have) express the same idea that many restaurants can’t afford the expense in a manner more likely to lead to productive discussion.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  This should not be down voted. The idea that a popular little family owned and operated Indian restaurant named "Bombay Curry" and still reeling from COVID-19 restrictions can some how sue Skip the Diehes or Uber Eats for Trademark infringement is absolutely ludicrous.
  - jeltz 6y ago
    Yeah, Uber is a company which is involved in legal battles with governments all over the world. I am sure they would make it a real pain to sue them. The idea of restaurants prusuing trademark cases against Uber is ridiculous.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

You are skipping quite a few steps here by jumping to "impersonating a business online", which I suspect is already illegal. This bill says that it would be illegal to pick food on behalf of someone else without the restaurant's agreement (if you're an online platform). The is no question of dishonesty or impersonation, just of offering this service. This is quite an extreme restriction, IMHO, and seems to be a kneejerk and simplistic response to a perceived problem. On the other hand, the problem of online reviews is separate and should be addressed specifically, IMHO. At the moment it's the wild West and a breeding ground for defamation. Maybe regulating this should get more attention from lawmakers (though I realise that in the US the 1st Amendment may make this difficult).

XorNot 6y ago
Why? The practice involved is in response to the absolute garbage of misrepresentation of a restaurant's telephone number to be intercepted by your own call centre's.
- ozim 6y ago
  Because if would like to have a honest delivery service that is not faking some restaurant, with the new law you will not be able to provide such service. It will be a lot more hassle to pick up something.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ekaros 6y ago
    I don't think it is anyway unreasonable for such service to come to agreement with the restaurant. And absolutely beneficial for both parties.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      The question is whether it should be required. If a restaurant welcomes takeaway orders then whether you order and collect in person or hire someone to do it on your behalf is irrelevant. That's why I think this bill is ill-thought-out. If there are shady practices taking place then they should be dealt with with existing legislation and, if needed, with new legislation specifically targeting these practices. Instead, I suspect this will only restrict services and competition, which ultimately won't be beneficial for consumers and restaurants alike.

ghaff 6y ago

The misrepresentation would seem to be the big thing. Someone, let's call them Joe, publishes a list of restaurants online with links to their menus and offers to deliver for the price of the order with tip plus a $10 delivery fee. And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. That seems pretty unobjectionable. And how would the restaurant even know? [ADDED: Subject of course to any health regulations that might apply to food delivery.] But that, of course, is not what any of these services do. There is still an argument that some foods just aren't a good match for delivery and, disclaimer or not, some consumers will still tend to blame Sally's Piping Hot Burgers when their burger arrives soggy and cold (or, worse, because of mishandling someone gets sick) rather than think that maybe they should have just gone and picked it up themselves or just not gotten burger take-out. So Sally should maybe have a right to refuse to sell to anyone other than the end consumer. But that seems trickier.

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
> And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. This isn’t actually clear. GrubHub’s about page: “ Grubhub is a leading online and mobile food-ordering and delivery marketplace with the largest and most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. ” This tells me as a customer that the restaurant is a consenting partner. This is a lie. EDIT: a commentor below had issue with my use of the word lie here. To clarify, I meant that this is not a clear disclaimer.
- judge2020 6y ago
  > But that, of course, is not what any of these services do.
- loceng 6y ago
  No, you're misinterpreting it - they don't claim all of the restaurants are partners, just that they have the most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. Edit: -4 downvotes so far for highlighting a person's bad logic - good start to the New Year for critical thinking on HN; I'll assume they're projecting their anger for the topic onto me, their emotion overriding their logic.

bitlevel 6y ago

Totally agree. And how about this: If you get food poisoning from a restaurant, you deal directly with them to resolve. If the food has been delivered by a 3rd party, what rights to resolve would you then have? Restaurants can simply state that the food was tainted after it left them, delivery firms can state the food from the restaurant was bad, etc etc.

learc83 6y ago
I agree with the sentiment. But you basically have no recourse if you get food poisoning from a restaurant. Unless it’s a mass event, there’s no way for you to prove it was the restaurant, and even if you could prove it, your damages aren’t likely to be enough to sue.
- newman8r 6y ago
  I had an old roommate try to sue in-n-out after getting severe food poisoning. It actually went to court - the in-n-out attorney completely destroyed him, he was outgunned. They showed receipts for thousands of people who ate there that day and that there weren't any other cases reported. Reporting food poisoning if it ever happens to you (even if minor) could be the difference between someone else being believed of being shut down.
  - dghughes 6y ago
    >They showed receipts for thousands of people who ate there that day and that there weren't any other cases reported. It makes you wonder: did the lawyer call each one of those thousands of people, did anyone get sick but didn't realize it was the burger, time could be an issue too maybe a few lettuce leaves had listeria on them but it only grew to levels after a certain time and temperature.
    - jiofih 6y ago
      If that’s the case and they did not consistently fail at food safety practices, just a one-off, then we can consider it an accident like any other and the restaurant is not culpable.

rattray 6y ago

IDK, this seems more like a mixed-bag to me on account of being opt-in instead of opt-out. Absolutely I agree that businesses should be able to easily opt out of being listed on a given delivery platform if/when it causes problems for them. But on the flip side, I've observed a lot of restaurant owners not having the time, energy, or know-how to set up even basic online things that could really boost their business. I would expect that many restaurants really benefited from Doordash adding their menu to their website without their knowledge (even if some have, in net, suffered). Going straight to opt-in seems like it could hurt some businesses. Not to mention, of course, any new entrants! This law will make it much harder to compete with "the next Doordash".

brandall10 6y ago
If they don’t have the time/skill/capital to handle online business on their own, then they can set up a partnership with these companies. That is a minimal effort, no? The key thing is this deals with a predatory practice.
save_ferris 6y ago
> But on the flip side, I've observed a lot of restaurant owners not having the time, energy, or know-how to set up even basic online things that could really boost their business. Isn't part of being a successful business knowing where to put your energy as a business owner? You're saying that restaurants don't necessarily have the ability to make the best decisions for their business, therefore they should be able to opt-out and not opt-in. The flip side of this argument is that these apps can cause undeserved damage to a restaurant's reputation. How do you know what's best for restaurants? You're arguing that the onus should be on the restaurant to opt out whenever a delivery platform causes problems, but the onus should be on the delivery platforms to create a product that restaurants, not just consumers, want to use.
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  This is already the case with bigger companies. As is the usual case with a lot "disruptive" firms, that "growth hacking" comes from exploiting some regulatory loophole that no one else has seen yet (e.g. most things related to the "sharing economy"). I'm pretty sure if I just declared myself to be a sales partner (idk the term?) of Cisco, IBM, Oracle, etc and just resold their gear, I'd be in hot water legally because my actions would reflect on them.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago

Was impersonation legal in California before this law?

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
No, but this protects small restaurant owners regardless if they are a legal entity with trademarks to protect.

m3kw9 6y ago

If my resturant didn’t sign up for a middle man, don’t force yourself in between. That seems reasonable

listenallyall 6y ago
Careful there... Apple (or any manufacturer) could say the same thing about Ebay. Any sports team or band could say it about Stubhub. Nike could say it about StockX.
- chongli 6y ago
  I think we can carve out an exception specifically for food and food services. Why? Because of the extremely limited shelf life of hot food. That’s what sets it apart from your other examples.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Actually, Stubhub is a little complicated in that, for example, sports season tickets can have conditions attached to them. Stubhub has lost a couple of court cases around that.
  - tw25601814 6y ago
    The law does not set any health standards on food delivery platforms. Restaurants will have to sign up with each delivery platform, and/or delivery platforms will have to sign up each restaurant. Either way, the net effect will be to protect the extant food delivery platforms from new competition.
  - zackkitzmiller 6y ago
    Lots of items have incredibly short shelf-lives as well. I spent nearly a decade in the live event ticketing industry so I'll focus on that. A significant precent of ticket sales are last minute. A friend tagging a long or someone waiting for prices to drop. Food spoils and looses quality fast, but so do good from many industries. I think carving out an exception for food is potentially a slippery slope. It would probably be better to carve out exceptions for any item that could potentially be worthless after some amount of time. Live event tickets, food, travel, etc.

VBprogrammer 6y ago

More pondering than a serious question; would it make a difference if they didn't rely on the original business name and reputation? For example, if I created a fictitious "Lucky Dog Chinese" and in fact delivered food provided by the "Lucky Cat Chinese" would that be disagreeable? Almost like dropshipping for restaurants.

Animats 6y ago
California law wouldn't prohibit that. The next step is "ghost kitchens".[1] These are commissary facilities that advertise as restaurants but only deliver. The ousted Uber CEO tried to get into that business, but not much seems to have come of "Cloud Kitchens". Some of these seem to be new ways to get people to work for too little. The delivery service is just the landlord; they rent people who want to run a restaurant a kitchen space, sell them raw materials, and deliver the product. Doordash has one in Redwood City. They have Rooster and Rice, and Chick-Fil-A franchisees. That's near me, and it was sad to see gig drivers waiting for their specific order to be ready. If they were employees being paid for waiting time, the next driver would get the next order, to minimize paid waiting. [1] https://www.fermag.com/articles/9618-7-Ghost-Kitchens-You-May-Not-Know-About/ https://www.fermag.com/articles/9618-7-Ghost-Kitchens-You-Ma...
- amyjess 6y ago
  There are a number of these ghost kitchens in my area available on Uber Eats, some of which are pretty good. Some of the best Nashville hot chicken I've ever had has been delivered from a place simply titled "Nashville Hot Chicken Shack". Googling them, I couldn't find anything about them. Not even putting in the street address gives me anything. But I did find out the address belonged to another restaurant, which let me realize that they were a ghost kitchen using that restaurant's kitchen facilities. And then I noticed in the app that the restaurant's name was mentioned in small print, which finally confirmed it.

CydeWeys 6y ago

It's also undeniably a good thing for customers as well. Using an unexpected intermediary in a transaction is a terrible experience. If I see a restaurant on GrubHub then I want to know that that restaurant wants orders coming through GrubHub. Otherwise, I'll be much better off calling up the restaurant directly. As it stands, I currently have to use Google Maps as my restaurant portal, using the restaurant's website or phone number to figure out how to place orders. Only if their website is or links out to a 3rd party like GrubHub do I then actually use GrubHub. But if GrubHub only showed restaurants that were actually delegating their delivery to GrubHub, then I could use it as a portal. Right now it's not trustworthy for that purpose.

jonnycomputer 6y ago
Honestly, I had thought that it was a partnership. For one, only a rather small subset of the restaurants in my area show up on Grubhub. I imagined that outsourcing the delivery function of their business would be a net win.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Around where I live, the listed restaurants seem to be mostly chain fast food restaurants. The local pizza place I order from doesn't seem to be listed nor are most of the other local take-out restaurants I would recognize the names of from driving by. I've looked because one of my credit cards gave me a free DoorDash subscription and there's literally nothing I'm interested in.

anticristi 6y ago

I don't understand why trademarks are insufficient to prevent this. Why didn't restaurants file a class action lawsuit against food delivery services to stop misusing their names? I think this law is great, but it kind of legitimises impersonation unless explicitly banned by law.

tshaddox 6y ago
I think this is just a practical matter: the legal system is not as accessible as you might hope it is.

dheera 6y ago

Not to mention the delivery apps dishonestly jack up listed prices, as seen on these 2 screenshots taken within the same hour: https://i.imgur.com/2HVXhvZ.png https://i.imgur.com/2HVXhvZ.png Then they have the guts to charge: - delivery fees ON TOP of that - then a service fee (WTF? you just charged for delivery service) - then a CA driver benefits of exactly $2.00 (why is it an exact whole number? is every cent of that going toward health insurance?) - small order fee - rush hour fee ...

cleak 6y ago
The key issue around all of this is transparency. Itemize costs, be clear how much money goes to each party, and state up front if you’re not affiliated.

tempsy 6y ago

In n Out has been a notable hold out from delivery apps for this reason.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rsync 6y ago

"This is undeniably a good thing if you put yourself in the shoes of the restaurant." Maybe. I have no idea. What I do know is, the following statement is 1A protected free speech: If you pay me enough money, I will drive to the Novato In'N'Out and buy a cheeseburger and deliver it to you. I offer this delivery service to anyone who wishes to negotiate my (extremely high) delivery rates. This is posted in a public place (is a listing) and I have no relationship with In'N'Out and no plans to establish one. Now what ?

johnmaguire2013 6y ago
Apple is a private company, not a public entity. AFAIK, your "free speech" is not protected here.
- cleak 6y ago
  Companies are people too.
ghaff 6y ago
You are clearly not a "food delivery platform" which this explicitly concerns. Obviously you can pay people to run errands for you, including picking up food and people can advertise their services.
- rsync 6y ago
  Yes, of course that is the case but a "real" delivery service is only one or two contortions away from "publishing" their "listings" in a way that is just like what I wrote.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
This law only applies to online businesses. So while this effectively stops businesses from providing this service without permission it does not prevent what you describe.
travisjungroth 6y ago
Then you’ll be breaking the law, as I understand it. Not every statement is protected under free speech. If a private pilot asks his friend if she wants to go on a trip and split costs, that’s legal. If he posts the offer in a public place, it’s illegal. There is a ton of precedent for this type of restriction of speech.

shadowgovt 6y ago

What if I put myself in the shoes of the consumer? Now if a restaurant doesn't offer delivery, can I still get delivery?

imtringued 6y ago

Yeah it's extremely weird. Nintendo will call lawyers on you if there is even a hint of a trade mark violation yet when restaurants are directly being defrauded there is no recourse.

ryandrake 6y ago
The difference being: Nintendo has entire buildings full of lawyers just waiting for the go-ahead to crush out your life with lawsuits, while Pam's House Of Burgers has trouble making payroll every week and has never hired a lawyer since its founding.
megameter 6y ago
We're at the onset of some kind of disruption of this norm around IP: If it's possible to automatically detect copyright violations, it's also within reach to give users tools that procedurally generate an infininum of infringing content, none of which can be litigated profitably by the corporation("swarm of bees" effects).

TeeMassive 6y ago

> Imagine if someone went around impersonating your business online, leveraging the good name you have built for yourself over the decades. They create ads offering your expert development services, ostensibly competing with your existing website, but with intentionally slashed pricing and a ‘creatively’ misrepresented offering (aka growth hacking). Isn't using someone else's brand to yours already illegal?

splaytreemap 6y ago

It's very much deniable. This now forces restaurants to sign an agreement and start paying a commission. Previously, they got a free delivery service at no cost to them. Now they either have to pay or lose business. This is bad for the majority of restaurants.

Diesel555 6y ago
While I do agree with the original post, I don't like the verbiage "undeniably a good thing" as they are saying there is no denying that what I am saying is true. And to think you know everything about an issue means you aren't willing to listen to different view points. Nothing I ever say is undeniable.

rossjudson 6y ago

Oddly, that bill says nothing about impersonating restaurants online. Looks like the delivery services are still free to squat on restaurant web space and perhaps helpfully point out that delivery is not available (when in fact it is, just not from that service). That's an interesting way of forcing an owner into "agreeing" with the delivery service.

reddog 6y ago

I seem to remember that back in the sweet usetobe before the internet one of the big catsup companies (Heinz? Hunts?) started suing restaurants for the common practice of watering down their catsup bottles that sat at the customer table. The catsup company was worried about people forming a negative intial impression of their product based on the watered down bottles. The restraunts argument was that once they bought the catsup bottle they were free to do what they wanted with it. Don't know how that suit came out but this seems like the same deal here.