4 ms·

Yet another law to reduce competition in the delivery space and help existing monopolies. I'm sure GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering. Indexing and aggregating

Yet another law to reduce competition in the delivery space and help existing monopolies. I'm sure GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering. Indexing and aggregating data is already covered by numerous laws. If Google can aggregate restaurant listings without permission then why can't others? Linking is ok, showing a call button is ok, but delivering isn't? The law around copyright is clear: you can't copy a restaurants menu without permission the same way you can't copy someone's blog post. This should be enough. If I want to pay a service to drive, purchase and deliver something for me it should be a human right, the same way that anyone should be able to walk into a restaurant and order without being refused service. Why don't restaurants want delivery companies doing this? The typical argument is bad Yelp reviews. Instead of blaming delivery companies why not blame Yelp for not authenticating their reviews? Same way that you shouldn't be able to leave an Amazon review without buying the product you shouldn't be able to leave a yelp review without booking a table at the restaurant. It's Yelp's fault for not authenticating reviews. Restaurants should be benefiting from delivery companies distributing their products, and there is nothing preventing them from offering direct to consumer deliveries themselves

throw_m239339 6y ago
> Why don't restaurants want delivery companies doing this? Why can't delivery services ask for permission before listing food from restaurants first? Why do they feel the need to impersonate restaurants, steal their menu, their trademark while never disclosing to the client that the restaurant has absolutely no part in that deal? Why can't delivery services behave in an ethical fashion that doesn't involve fraud? When your business model is so rotten you need to lie on both ends to make money (restaurants and clients), well you shouldn't be in business at all.
- akrymski 6y ago
  Why can Google aggregate websites without author permissions? Data protection laws already exist. I'm not arguing it's good or bad. I'm just saying that since the laws won't be applied retroactively it equates to creating a huge barrier for new startups entering the field. Instead of promoting competition, existing leaders will be able to put ever more pricing pressure on restaurants.
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > Why can Google aggregate websites without author permissions? Because you can't even tell the difference between a fraudulent delivery business and a search engine aggregating a bunch of links? OK...
- curryst 6y ago
  And yet, this is how everything else in the world works. I'm free to go buy 12 packs of Coke and resell them. I don't have to ask Coke if I can sell their product. I can even drive and deliver them to people if I want. > Why do they feel the need to impersonate restaurants, steal their menu, their trademark while never disclosing to the client that the restaurant has absolutely no part in that deal? Steal is a misleading term, as it implies that the restaurant is not able to use that menu. Delivery services are extracting and copying the information in the menu. They don't even show photos of the menu as far as I'm aware. I don't see anything unethical here. They offer delivery of goods. You pay them, they pay their supplier (the restaurant), and they deliver you the goods. It's not any different than a restaurant, except their service is delivering food instead of converting raw ingredients into food. If this is really unethical, why aren't we targeting drop shippers? They're even worse, they actually rebrand the goods so you can't tell who actually manufactured it. They play the exact same role; their only service is providing delivery for goods someone else manufactured.
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > I'm free to go buy 12 packs of Coke and resell them. 12 packs of Coke isn't prepared food. That's the difference between you buying and selling cans of Coke and DoorDash reselling some sushi without the restaurant's approval.
anandsuresh 6y ago
It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it does make it harder for newer businesses to enter the space. However, from what I have been able to piece together, the real culprits here are DoorDash and GrubHub, by listing restaurants without permission/agreements in the first place, necessitating the creation of this law. You're probably right that GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering at the moment, unless the law gets applied retro-actively (though I highly doubt that). > Indexing and aggregating data is already covered by numerous laws. If Google can aggregate restaurant listings without permission then why can't others? Linking is ok, showing a call button is ok, but delivering isn't? Searching for information on the internet and having food delivered are not the same experience; I'm usually not "hangry" when my search results take too long to come up, and/or are not what I was expecting. Even so, I usually blame Google for the bad results. It "should" be the same for food delivery services as well, where people "should" blame DoorDash/GrubHub, but that rarely happens. For better or worse, it is the restaurant that takes the blame, and risks losing future business. Most people I have spoken to regarding this issue were under the assumption that the delivery service already had agreements in place with these restaurants. A lot of these people are business owners themselves, and were surprised to find out that no such agreements existed; much like I was when I first found out about this issue. > The law around copyright is clear: you can't copy a restaurants menu without permission the same way you can't copy someone's blog post. This should be enough. True. It "should" be enough, but in practice, it rarely is. Most companies operate knowing that legal processes are lengthy and expensive and take that into account when modeling their business practices. > Why don't restaurants want delivery companies doing this? The typical argument is bad Yelp reviews. Instead of blaming delivery companies why not blame Yelp for not authenticating their reviews? When you're a small-business owner losing business due to the activities of some third-party service you did not authorize to represent you in the first place, you're usually not looking to blame another third-party service for the bad reviews you didn't know you were getting; especially one whose "business-model" was to blackmail restaurants to take down bad reviews. As a business owner, it is my right to know my customer and know anyone who is (mis)using my brand without my permission. > Restaurants should be benefiting from delivery companies distributing their products, and there is nothing preventing them from offering direct to consumer deliveries themselves. A handful of restaurants I order from on DoorDash/GrubHub usually have their own delivery crew. It isn't a requirement for every restaurant to offer delivery. Elsewhere in this thread, there was the issue of certain food items (usually the restaurant's speciality) having very precise kitchen-to-table time requirements. It is hard for a restaurant owner to control their product when they don't have any control over the delivery process. And when they choose to not have delivery, they are bypassed entirely by these third-parties. Seems perfectly fine for the restaurant to fight back against such practices. EDIT: fixed typo

throw_m239339 6y ago

> Why don't restaurants want delivery companies doing this? Why can't delivery services ask for permission before listing food from restaurants first? Why do they feel the need to impersonate restaurants, steal their menu, their trademark while never disclosing to the client that the restaurant has absolutely no part in that deal? Why can't delivery services behave in an ethical fashion that doesn't involve fraud? When your business model is so rotten you need to lie on both ends to make money (restaurants and clients), well you shouldn't be in business at all.

akrymski 6y ago
Why can Google aggregate websites without author permissions? Data protection laws already exist. I'm not arguing it's good or bad. I'm just saying that since the laws won't be applied retroactively it equates to creating a huge barrier for new startups entering the field. Instead of promoting competition, existing leaders will be able to put ever more pricing pressure on restaurants.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > Why can Google aggregate websites without author permissions? Because you can't even tell the difference between a fraudulent delivery business and a search engine aggregating a bunch of links? OK...
curryst 6y ago
And yet, this is how everything else in the world works. I'm free to go buy 12 packs of Coke and resell them. I don't have to ask Coke if I can sell their product. I can even drive and deliver them to people if I want. > Why do they feel the need to impersonate restaurants, steal their menu, their trademark while never disclosing to the client that the restaurant has absolutely no part in that deal? Steal is a misleading term, as it implies that the restaurant is not able to use that menu. Delivery services are extracting and copying the information in the menu. They don't even show photos of the menu as far as I'm aware. I don't see anything unethical here. They offer delivery of goods. You pay them, they pay their supplier (the restaurant), and they deliver you the goods. It's not any different than a restaurant, except their service is delivering food instead of converting raw ingredients into food. If this is really unethical, why aren't we targeting drop shippers? They're even worse, they actually rebrand the goods so you can't tell who actually manufactured it. They play the exact same role; their only service is providing delivery for goods someone else manufactured.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > I'm free to go buy 12 packs of Coke and resell them. 12 packs of Coke isn't prepared food. That's the difference between you buying and selling cans of Coke and DoorDash reselling some sushi without the restaurant's approval.

anandsuresh 6y ago

It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it does make it harder for newer businesses to enter the space. However, from what I have been able to piece together, the real culprits here are DoorDash and GrubHub, by listing restaurants without permission/agreements in the first place, necessitating the creation of this law. You're probably right that GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering at the moment, unless the law gets applied retro-actively (though I highly doubt that). > Indexing and aggregating data is already covered by numerous laws. If Google can aggregate restaurant listings without permission then why can't others? Linking is ok, showing a call button is ok, but delivering isn't? Searching for information on the internet and having food delivered are not the same experience; I'm usually not "hangry" when my search results take too long to come up, and/or are not what I was expecting. Even so, I usually blame Google for the bad results. It "should" be the same for food delivery services as well, where people "should" blame DoorDash/GrubHub, but that rarely happens. For better or worse, it is the restaurant that takes the blame, and risks losing future business. Most people I have spoken to regarding this issue were under the assumption that the delivery service already had agreements in place with these restaurants. A lot of these people are business owners themselves, and were surprised to find out that no such agreements existed; much like I was when I first found out about this issue. > The law around copyright is clear: you can't copy a restaurants menu without permission the same way you can't copy someone's blog post. This should be enough. True. It "should" be enough, but in practice, it rarely is. Most companies operate knowing that legal processes are lengthy and expensive and take that into account when modeling their business practices. > Why don't restaurants want delivery companies doing this? The typical argument is bad Yelp reviews. Instead of blaming delivery companies why not blame Yelp for not authenticating their reviews? When you're a small-business owner losing business due to the activities of some third-party service you did not authorize to represent you in the first place, you're usually not looking to blame another third-party service for the bad reviews you didn't know you were getting; especially one whose "business-model" was to blackmail restaurants to take down bad reviews. As a business owner, it is my right to know my customer and know anyone who is (mis)using my brand without my permission. > Restaurants should be benefiting from delivery companies distributing their products, and there is nothing preventing them from offering direct to consumer deliveries themselves. A handful of restaurants I order from on DoorDash/GrubHub usually have their own delivery crew. It isn't a requirement for every restaurant to offer delivery. Elsewhere in this thread, there was the issue of certain food items (usually the restaurant's speciality) having very precise kitchen-to-table time requirements. It is hard for a restaurant owner to control their product when they don't have any control over the delivery process. And when they choose to not have delivery, they are bypassed entirely by these third-parties. Seems perfectly fine for the restaurant to fight back against such practices. EDIT: fixed typo