5 ms·

This is irrelevant. The delivery companies will just increase the prices of the items, or charge Service Fees, or charge Temporary Local Fees, or charge Taxes.

This is irrelevant. The delivery companies will just increase the prices of the items, or charge Service Fees, or charge Temporary Local Fees, or charge Taxes. UberEats does exactly this in each of those transactional labels already. And let's not forget the driver tip which often defaults to a percentage of the sum() of the above items.

SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago
DoorDash charges a $1 to $2.50 “Regulatory Response Fee”, explained as follows: > A local regulation has temporarily capped the fees that we may charge local restaurants. To continue to offer you convenient delivery while ensuring that Dashers are active and earning, you will now see an additional fee that we are charging for local orders in this area. Mission accomplished, everyone!
- gnicholas 5y ago
  If DoorDash did something similar to this in response to this proposed rule, it would actually be useful because it would make the system more transparent. As it is now, customers have no idea how much restaurants are being charged by DoorDash. If they kept 15% and then created a new explicit customer-facing fee (as allowed by the proposed rule), then at least customers would know how much of their money is going where. The only downside is they might be misled into thinking that the new rule caused the fee, when in reality it only caused DoorDash to divide it up and make part of it explicit.
- Me1000 5y ago
  The snark seems misplaced. This regulation is not about making food delivery cheaper for customers, it's about making sure the restaurants are able to maintain enough margin to stay in business, a notoriously difficult business at that. Let's assume DoorDash was charging 30% (as was mentioned in the article), on a $30 food order DoorDash would take $9 of that from the restaurant. I'm happy to pay an extra $2.50 if my local restaurant gets to keep that extra $4.50.
huevosabio 5y ago
This is the point, most of these apps have a clause that caps their price in the app to the price in person (e.g. Uber[1]). This means that the restaurant is either eating the fees directly or it must just simply not sell on the platform. This should be fine during normal times, no one is forcing you to sell via Uber Eats, but it is abhorrent during the pandemic. I think the proper way to legislate here was to make such clauses illegal: restaurants should be able to price based on whether it is dine-in, pick up or delivery. [1] 5.6 Pricing. in https://www.uber.com/legal/fr-ca/document/?name=uber-eats-merchant-terms-and-conditions&country=united-states&lang=en https://www.uber.com/legal/fr-ca/document/?name=uber-eats-me...

SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago

DoorDash charges a $1 to $2.50 “Regulatory Response Fee”, explained as follows: > A local regulation has temporarily capped the fees that we may charge local restaurants. To continue to offer you convenient delivery while ensuring that Dashers are active and earning, you will now see an additional fee that we are charging for local orders in this area. Mission accomplished, everyone!

gnicholas 5y ago
If DoorDash did something similar to this in response to this proposed rule, it would actually be useful because it would make the system more transparent. As it is now, customers have no idea how much restaurants are being charged by DoorDash. If they kept 15% and then created a new explicit customer-facing fee (as allowed by the proposed rule), then at least customers would know how much of their money is going where. The only downside is they might be misled into thinking that the new rule caused the fee, when in reality it only caused DoorDash to divide it up and make part of it explicit.
Me1000 5y ago
The snark seems misplaced. This regulation is not about making food delivery cheaper for customers, it's about making sure the restaurants are able to maintain enough margin to stay in business, a notoriously difficult business at that. Let's assume DoorDash was charging 30% (as was mentioned in the article), on a $30 food order DoorDash would take $9 of that from the restaurant. I'm happy to pay an extra $2.50 if my local restaurant gets to keep that extra $4.50.

huevosabio 5y ago

This is the point, most of these apps have a clause that caps their price in the app to the price in person (e.g. Uber[1]). This means that the restaurant is either eating the fees directly or it must just simply not sell on the platform. This should be fine during normal times, no one is forcing you to sell via Uber Eats, but it is abhorrent during the pandemic. I think the proper way to legislate here was to make such clauses illegal: restaurants should be able to price based on whether it is dine-in, pick up or delivery. [1] 5.6 Pricing. in https://www.uber.com/legal/fr-ca/document/?name=uber-eats-merchant-terms-and-conditions&country=united-states&lang=en https://www.uber.com/legal/fr-ca/document/?name=uber-eats-me...