14 ms·

I could be wrong here, but, I think the lawsuit is totally misdirected. Restaurants should be upset with the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) instead. The p

I could be wrong here, but, I think the lawsuit is totally misdirected. Restaurants should be upset with the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) instead. The problem is the ordering platforms enabling this integration without restaurant consent. (Or, perhaps worse, offering orders without restaurant consent?) Google just provides an API that allows restaurant ordering from Maps, Search etc. It connects to the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) [1]. The ordering platforms integrate with this API by uploading data feeds and implementing a server with specific interface. [2] I don't think Google even takes a cut! I worked on an integration to a similar API, "Reserve with Google" [3]. With that one, at least, it can be enabled/disabled at the restaurant level. I assume that "Order with Google" is similar. [1] https://developers.google.com/actions/food-ordering https://developers.google.com/actions/food-ordering [2] https://developers.google.com/actions/food-ordering/guides/build/integration-steps https://developers.google.com/actions/food-ordering/guides/b... [3] https://www.google.com/maps/reserve/ https://www.google.com/maps/reserve/

ptudan 5y ago
I would be shocked if google didn't get a cut, or at least a pay per click. Just doesn't seem like them not to
- kevinschumacher 5y ago
  It could be more of a strategic play to keep eyeballs on Google properties and further build the advertising profile. Also provides a foothold into entering the ordering/delivery/reservation businesses at a much later date if they so choose. IIRC Google didn't take a cut on restaurant reservations, at least
- jsnell 5y ago
  The article addresses this, with the following quote: > We do not receive any compensation for orders or integrations with this feature It could of course be a lie, but that seems like a bad strategy.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Imagine every part of Google is a neural network black box that has machine-learned to say and do whatever makes the company the most profit as a whole, lawsuits deducted.
    - lmkg 5y ago
      It can't deduct the value of lawsuits until it gets training data.
      - trulyme 5y ago
        The data is incoming, no worries.
account42 5y ago
Depends, if paid ads were involved to list e.g. DoorDash higher on the results then I think google should deserve some of the blame.
- kevinschumacher 5y ago
  I don't think you can blame Google for allowing a delivery operator to buy ads on a restaurant's name. If it's the delivery operator's business model to buy ads to get a cut of an order, then, we should be upset with the delivery operator. (edit: removed off topic and specific business)
  - wgjordan 5y ago
    I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame/be upset with both the delivery operator (for infringing upon the restaurant's trademark by causing confusion as to the source of goods/services), and the e-commerce platform for knowingly facilitating/allowing the trademark infringement to occur on its platform. This is called 'secondary' or 'contributory' infringement in legal jargon.
winternett 5y ago
Google takes a cut when those companies pay for ads on the platform. It's the old switcheroo... For many years Google had run their search engine as a trusted source for indexed search with advertising subtly placed. Now that they are dominating the entire search market, they are skewing results to anyone who pays for promotion with them under the table, and it's not clearly apparent to users. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find a restaurant web site on google and it's buried under direct links to door dash and other order online services that add surcharges. It's so bad now that the only way I can ensure that I'm not being overcharged for no good reason is to order by phone or directly at restaurants. There is very little value added to so many online businesses now because of twisted Internet schemes like this.
- kevinschumacher 5y ago
  > Google takes a cut when those companies pay for ads on the platform. > I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find a restaurant web site on google and it's buried under direct links to door dash and other order online services that add surcharges. That's definitely true, but that's not what's being discussed.
- riverdroid 5y ago
  Be aware of platforms publishing a 'proxy' phone number so they can still collect their fees: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756878/yelp-grubhub-commission-fees-restaurant-fake-phone-numbers-app https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756878/yelp-grubhub-comm...
  - lupire 5y ago
    Why? Do you also beware of restaraunt waiters collecting a fee for bringing you food you could get directly from the cook? If you want to undercut an affilate referral, go to the restaurant ditrctlry instead of a third party leadgen site.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      > If you want to undercut an affilate referral, go to the restaurant ditrctlry instead of a third party leadgen site. The whole issue is that the leadgen site is pretending to be the real restaurant to collect a fee. This isn’t just “why complain that DoorDash takes a fee when you use DoorDash”. It’s “company X is pretending to be restaurant Y in order to add a fee while providing no value added”.
josefx 5y ago
> The problem is the ordering platforms enabling this integration without restaurant consent. The lawsuit seems to focus on the history of how that happened a bit. Namely Google seems to have initially tried to sell this API to restaurants directly. Hence the brazen trademark infringement and restaurant impersonation, it was intended to operate with the authorization of the restaurants directly. Only when that failed did they move on to third party distributors that didn't have any right to the trademarks, without changing the now deceptive interface. > I don't think Google even takes a cut! The lawsuit is a bit unclear on that (through information and belief) but also cites alternative revenue streams through ads and pushing more people onto its own payment platform.
- kevinschumacher 5y ago
  > Namely Google seems to have initially tried to sell this API to restaurants directly. ...which was a fools errand. It is impossible to expect individual restaurants (_maybe_ aside from large restaurant groups - ie, big chains) to integrate with this API. To me it seems much more likely that Google pivoted to working directly with delivery operators for practical reasons to make the product functional. I would also bet that contracts with the delivery operators include a bit about how they will enable this integration and what that means. Perhaps they do not make it explicit enough in the sales cycle (or, didn't in the case of Lime)
- tomger 5y ago
  Google doesn’t take a cut yet.
  - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
    Bingo. Cripple the competition now, then turn on the money spigot whenever they want.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Or wait until you gain critical mass, and then pull the plug on the entire project since it's not making money. It is the Googs after all.
brightball 5y ago
I honestly don’t know how restaurants even get a say in the matter. Ultimately, as a customer I am placing a to-go order and hiring somebody to go pick it up for me. DoorDash has made an effort to streamline the process. If to-go orders are an option then you really don’t get a choice in who I send to pick it up.
- wccrawford 5y ago
  They get a say because those companies were doing everything they can not to let the customer know about that disconnect. Many customers thought the restaurant had agreed to the service, and were holding the restaurant responsible for mistakes the delivery companies made. I'm not quite willing to call it fraud yet, but it's in that area.
  - brightball 5y ago
    I can understand that aspect of it.
  - RegW 5y ago
    > I'm not quite willing to call it fraud yet, Great. So if you're happy with just a bit of disconnect, I'll get down the dump and pick up some old oil drums and fire up a kitchen in the garage. What do you fancy? KFC? Nandos? No. If we can pretend to represent someone else without their concent, based on unverified 3rd party data, then we're cooking with tinned worms.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  They get a say through trademark law. If you show the KFC logo or even name on a service, you have to seek KFC's permission to do so.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    As long as you're reselling actual KFC products, you are not likely violating their trademark. However, if you deceive the customer into thinking they are buying directly from KFC, then you likely are. In a similar situation, Ferrari has often attempted to keep independent repair shops from using the Ferrari name and logo to advertise that they service Ferrari cars. They've lost quite a few times. All that said, you can still run into copyright issues when reproducing somebody's logo.
mdoms 5y ago
Regardless of the underlying technical implementation, Google is offering an unsolicited Order Now feature to its users under the restaurants' brand.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Mikeb85 5y ago
The problem is that Google makes it look like it's part of the restaurant's own Google Business account but then directs to a 3rd party without the restaurant's explicit consent.
- Melatonic 5y ago
  This is a very good point and I think perhaps, from a logic point of view, a huge issue.
gumby 5y ago
> Google just provides an API that allows restaurant ordering from Maps, Search etc. It connects to the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) [1]. The ordering platforms integrate with this API by uploading data feeds and implementing a server with specific interface. [2] > I don't think Google even takes a cut! Yes officer, I did leave the bank door unlocked as a favor to my friend, but I didn't even get any of the stolen money!
- kevinschumacher 5y ago
  This is a fair take. But in your analogy, we'd go after the thief, too, right? And the thief would get a harsher sentence? Yet there's no lawsuit against the thief.
  - gumby 5y ago
    Door dash is odious and needs a comeuppance, no question. But their theft does not acquit their accomplices.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    > Yet there's no lawsuit against the thief. Maybe they want to fight Google first and then sue the other parties depending on how the Google lawsuit goes.
wnevets 5y ago
I just wish there was a way to disable that integration. I have to go out of my way to avoid using it and go directly to the restaurant site to place the order.

ptudan 5y ago

I would be shocked if google didn't get a cut, or at least a pay per click. Just doesn't seem like them not to

kevinschumacher 5y ago
It could be more of a strategic play to keep eyeballs on Google properties and further build the advertising profile. Also provides a foothold into entering the ordering/delivery/reservation businesses at a much later date if they so choose. IIRC Google didn't take a cut on restaurant reservations, at least
jsnell 5y ago
The article addresses this, with the following quote: > We do not receive any compensation for orders or integrations with this feature It could of course be a lie, but that seems like a bad strategy.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Imagine every part of Google is a neural network black box that has machine-learned to say and do whatever makes the company the most profit as a whole, lawsuits deducted.
  - lmkg 5y ago
    It can't deduct the value of lawsuits until it gets training data.
    - trulyme 5y ago
      The data is incoming, no worries.

account42 5y ago

Depends, if paid ads were involved to list e.g. DoorDash higher on the results then I think google should deserve some of the blame.

kevinschumacher 5y ago
I don't think you can blame Google for allowing a delivery operator to buy ads on a restaurant's name. If it's the delivery operator's business model to buy ads to get a cut of an order, then, we should be upset with the delivery operator. (edit: removed off topic and specific business)
- wgjordan 5y ago
  I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame/be upset with both the delivery operator (for infringing upon the restaurant's trademark by causing confusion as to the source of goods/services), and the e-commerce platform for knowingly facilitating/allowing the trademark infringement to occur on its platform. This is called 'secondary' or 'contributory' infringement in legal jargon.

winternett 5y ago

Google takes a cut when those companies pay for ads on the platform. It's the old switcheroo... For many years Google had run their search engine as a trusted source for indexed search with advertising subtly placed. Now that they are dominating the entire search market, they are skewing results to anyone who pays for promotion with them under the table, and it's not clearly apparent to users. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find a restaurant web site on google and it's buried under direct links to door dash and other order online services that add surcharges. It's so bad now that the only way I can ensure that I'm not being overcharged for no good reason is to order by phone or directly at restaurants. There is very little value added to so many online businesses now because of twisted Internet schemes like this.

kevinschumacher 5y ago
> Google takes a cut when those companies pay for ads on the platform. > I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find a restaurant web site on google and it's buried under direct links to door dash and other order online services that add surcharges. That's definitely true, but that's not what's being discussed.
riverdroid 5y ago
Be aware of platforms publishing a 'proxy' phone number so they can still collect their fees: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756878/yelp-grubhub-commission-fees-restaurant-fake-phone-numbers-app https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756878/yelp-grubhub-comm...
- lupire 5y ago
  Why? Do you also beware of restaraunt waiters collecting a fee for bringing you food you could get directly from the cook? If you want to undercut an affilate referral, go to the restaurant ditrctlry instead of a third party leadgen site.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > If you want to undercut an affilate referral, go to the restaurant ditrctlry instead of a third party leadgen site. The whole issue is that the leadgen site is pretending to be the real restaurant to collect a fee. This isn’t just “why complain that DoorDash takes a fee when you use DoorDash”. It’s “company X is pretending to be restaurant Y in order to add a fee while providing no value added”.

josefx 5y ago

> The problem is the ordering platforms enabling this integration without restaurant consent. The lawsuit seems to focus on the history of how that happened a bit. Namely Google seems to have initially tried to sell this API to restaurants directly. Hence the brazen trademark infringement and restaurant impersonation, it was intended to operate with the authorization of the restaurants directly. Only when that failed did they move on to third party distributors that didn't have any right to the trademarks, without changing the now deceptive interface. > I don't think Google even takes a cut! The lawsuit is a bit unclear on that (through information and belief) but also cites alternative revenue streams through ads and pushing more people onto its own payment platform.

kevinschumacher 5y ago
> Namely Google seems to have initially tried to sell this API to restaurants directly. ...which was a fools errand. It is impossible to expect individual restaurants (_maybe_ aside from large restaurant groups - ie, big chains) to integrate with this API. To me it seems much more likely that Google pivoted to working directly with delivery operators for practical reasons to make the product functional. I would also bet that contracts with the delivery operators include a bit about how they will enable this integration and what that means. Perhaps they do not make it explicit enough in the sales cycle (or, didn't in the case of Lime)
tomger 5y ago
Google doesn’t take a cut yet.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Bingo. Cripple the competition now, then turn on the money spigot whenever they want.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Or wait until you gain critical mass, and then pull the plug on the entire project since it's not making money. It is the Googs after all.

brightball 5y ago

I honestly don’t know how restaurants even get a say in the matter. Ultimately, as a customer I am placing a to-go order and hiring somebody to go pick it up for me. DoorDash has made an effort to streamline the process. If to-go orders are an option then you really don’t get a choice in who I send to pick it up.

wccrawford 5y ago
They get a say because those companies were doing everything they can not to let the customer know about that disconnect. Many customers thought the restaurant had agreed to the service, and were holding the restaurant responsible for mistakes the delivery companies made. I'm not quite willing to call it fraud yet, but it's in that area.
- brightball 5y ago
  I can understand that aspect of it.
- RegW 5y ago
  > I'm not quite willing to call it fraud yet, Great. So if you're happy with just a bit of disconnect, I'll get down the dump and pick up some old oil drums and fire up a kitchen in the garage. What do you fancy? KFC? Nandos? No. If we can pretend to represent someone else without their concent, based on unverified 3rd party data, then we're cooking with tinned worms.
tsimionescu 5y ago
They get a say through trademark law. If you show the KFC logo or even name on a service, you have to seek KFC's permission to do so.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  As long as you're reselling actual KFC products, you are not likely violating their trademark. However, if you deceive the customer into thinking they are buying directly from KFC, then you likely are. In a similar situation, Ferrari has often attempted to keep independent repair shops from using the Ferrari name and logo to advertise that they service Ferrari cars. They've lost quite a few times. All that said, you can still run into copyright issues when reproducing somebody's logo.

mdoms 5y ago

Regardless of the underlying technical implementation, Google is offering an unsolicited Order Now feature to its users under the restaurants' brand.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Mikeb85 5y ago

The problem is that Google makes it look like it's part of the restaurant's own Google Business account but then directs to a 3rd party without the restaurant's explicit consent.

Melatonic 5y ago
This is a very good point and I think perhaps, from a logic point of view, a huge issue.

gumby 5y ago

> Google just provides an API that allows restaurant ordering from Maps, Search etc. It connects to the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) [1]. The ordering platforms integrate with this API by uploading data feeds and implementing a server with specific interface. [2] > I don't think Google even takes a cut! Yes officer, I did leave the bank door unlocked as a favor to my friend, but I didn't even get any of the stolen money!

kevinschumacher 5y ago
This is a fair take. But in your analogy, we'd go after the thief, too, right? And the thief would get a harsher sentence? Yet there's no lawsuit against the thief.
- gumby 5y ago
  Door dash is odious and needs a comeuppance, no question. But their theft does not acquit their accomplices.
- sumedh 5y ago
  > Yet there's no lawsuit against the thief. Maybe they want to fight Google first and then sue the other parties depending on how the Google lawsuit goes.

wnevets 5y ago

I just wish there was a way to disable that integration. I have to go out of my way to avoid using it and go directly to the restaurant site to place the order.