10 ms·

I assumed this was one of those "true stories" that content marketers put out to push their newsletter, but I see in an update he actually names the restaurant

I assumed this was one of those "true stories" that content marketers put out to push their newsletter, but I see in an update he actually names the restaurant that allegedly did this. Would this be fraud? Not necessarily ordering pizza from your own restaurant, but, say, ordering pizza from your own restaurant but only putting dough into the boxes?

WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
I mean, if the customer doesn't complain, why would Doordash care?
stickfigure 4y ago
> Would this be fraud? It's hard to imagine. The restaurant clearly has no contractual relationship with Doordash. I don't know why they even bothered with the dough and boxes.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  > why they even bothered with the dough and boxes So it wouldn't be fraud. They had to deliver what was ordered.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  If they shipped empty boxes the driver probably would have noticed and brought it to someone's attention. either refusing to deliver or ending the promotion early.
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  You always enter in a contractual relationship with companies like Doordash if you buy anything through them - which they clearly did here. Whether or not this scheme breaks said agreement could only be answered by checking it closely, but if their legal department is worth anything there's probably some general purpose safeguard against abusing the service.
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    Ah yes the general. "Ultimately we can choose to screw you however we want, but we've made some sort of blanket clause in this that if you try something that is a breach of contract" Or as the The PHB in Dilbert once said "It's better than legal we are using the law to keep justice away."
  - pkaye 4y ago
    But Door dash also entered a contractual relationship when it bought pizza from the pizzeria. Did they read that contract clearly?
    - sigmoid10 4y ago
      I wouldn't bet on a small pizza place having a dedicated legal team that can craft clauses to keep this kind of abuse away.
  - Zigurd 4y ago
    Enforceability and recourse are hurdles to punishing the pizza parlor with anything more than denying them a listing if at some point they wanted one. The pizza parlor did not ask to be listed so recourse seems especially weak.
puffoflogic 4y ago
For this to be fraud someone would have to be defrauded. Certainly the owner was not defrauded, nor anyone working with him to purchase the dough. Nor was Doordash defrauded: they offered to sell anyone pizzas for $16, and the owner took them up on the offer.
- WesternWind 4y ago
  Doordash defines itself as a technology company responsible for connecting customers with restaurants using dashers as contractors for delivery and itself providing logistics for ordering, paying, and routing dashers. Can you imagine what the press would do if Doordash actually sued the local pizza place because it was dumb, or filed a police report? I think it wouldn't be pretty, and the stock price could go down, and doing something that makes your stock go down can lead to an investor lawsuit. Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I'd love to see a lawyer analyze this though.
colechristensen 4y ago
>Would this be fraud? It might be fraud. I doubt the damage would be worth the possible backlash for doordash to pursue this.
donohoe 4y ago
No.
blendergeek 4y ago
> Would this be fraud? No. This is not fraud. Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. The pizza company did not contract with Doordash to run an "$8 off" pizza promotion. Rather, Doordash, in an attempt to claim a near monopoly on the food ordering market, chose to sell food at a loss. The goal of this strategy is to get consumers used to buying from Doordash (while prices are low). Once a sizable percentage of orders are going through Doordash, Doordash can raise fees and refuse to list companies that don't pay up. The only way to get this sort of market share is through tactics like the one described (selling food at a loss). When the pizza man chooses to buy his own pizza on Doordash, he is merely affording himself of the same cheap pizza that Doordash is providing to anyone else. Doordash is behaving rationally here. They need to capture the mindshare of users. By providing pizza delivery at prices that are lower than economically viable, Doordash will get this. The pizza man is simply choosing to benefit while he can. Long live the pizza man!
- colpabar 4y ago
  If he wanted to really stick it to them, he'd complain that his pizzas were just dough and get himself some doordash credits :)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. Don't Doordash and the pizza company owner have a contractual relationship when the pizza shop owner agrees to the Terms of Service for using the Doordash app to order food? I have no clue if the doordash TOS forbids such usage, but it might?
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    No, that was kind of the point. Doordash listed them without the restaurant's approval. In fact it was a surprise to the pizza place they were on DD.
dszoboszlay 4y ago
It may or may not be fraud as the letter of the law, but this is definitely the shadiest part of the story. Also a pretty lame thing to do. It would have been much more elegant to add some crazy overpriced option to your pizzas where you could make a huge margin. Like "gift wrap +$100" which would mean putting a $0.01 ribbon around the box. You could make much more money this way from Doordash with less hassle than switching certain orders to plain dough.
goodcanadian 4y ago
Would this be fraud? IANAL, but I am going to go against the prevailing trend and suggest that it might actually be fraud. In ordering the pizzas from Doordash, he misrepresented himself to Doordash as a genuine customer (for financial gain). As far as not actually delivering complete pizzas, that may not be fraud as he did not misrepresent the product to . . . himself. However, I could also see an argument for it being fraud as Doordash bought pizzas from him, and he did not deliver pizzas (regardless of the fact that Doordash then sold the "pizzas" back to him for less).

WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago

I mean, if the customer doesn't complain, why would Doordash care?

stickfigure 4y ago

> Would this be fraud? It's hard to imagine. The restaurant clearly has no contractual relationship with Doordash. I don't know why they even bothered with the dough and boxes.

MerelyMortal 4y ago
> why they even bothered with the dough and boxes So it wouldn't be fraud. They had to deliver what was ordered.
stonemetal12 4y ago
If they shipped empty boxes the driver probably would have noticed and brought it to someone's attention. either refusing to deliver or ending the promotion early.
sigmoid10 4y ago
You always enter in a contractual relationship with companies like Doordash if you buy anything through them - which they clearly did here. Whether or not this scheme breaks said agreement could only be answered by checking it closely, but if their legal department is worth anything there's probably some general purpose safeguard against abusing the service.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  Ah yes the general. "Ultimately we can choose to screw you however we want, but we've made some sort of blanket clause in this that if you try something that is a breach of contract" Or as the The PHB in Dilbert once said "It's better than legal we are using the law to keep justice away."
- pkaye 4y ago
  But Door dash also entered a contractual relationship when it bought pizza from the pizzeria. Did they read that contract clearly?
  - sigmoid10 4y ago
    I wouldn't bet on a small pizza place having a dedicated legal team that can craft clauses to keep this kind of abuse away.
- Zigurd 4y ago
  Enforceability and recourse are hurdles to punishing the pizza parlor with anything more than denying them a listing if at some point they wanted one. The pizza parlor did not ask to be listed so recourse seems especially weak.

puffoflogic 4y ago

For this to be fraud someone would have to be defrauded. Certainly the owner was not defrauded, nor anyone working with him to purchase the dough. Nor was Doordash defrauded: they offered to sell anyone pizzas for $16, and the owner took them up on the offer.

WesternWind 4y ago
Doordash defines itself as a technology company responsible for connecting customers with restaurants using dashers as contractors for delivery and itself providing logistics for ordering, paying, and routing dashers. Can you imagine what the press would do if Doordash actually sued the local pizza place because it was dumb, or filed a police report? I think it wouldn't be pretty, and the stock price could go down, and doing something that makes your stock go down can lead to an investor lawsuit. Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I'd love to see a lawyer analyze this though.

colechristensen 4y ago

>Would this be fraud? It might be fraud. I doubt the damage would be worth the possible backlash for doordash to pursue this.

donohoe 4y ago

No.

blendergeek 4y ago

> Would this be fraud? No. This is not fraud. Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. The pizza company did not contract with Doordash to run an "$8 off" pizza promotion. Rather, Doordash, in an attempt to claim a near monopoly on the food ordering market, chose to sell food at a loss. The goal of this strategy is to get consumers used to buying from Doordash (while prices are low). Once a sizable percentage of orders are going through Doordash, Doordash can raise fees and refuse to list companies that don't pay up. The only way to get this sort of market share is through tactics like the one described (selling food at a loss). When the pizza man chooses to buy his own pizza on Doordash, he is merely affording himself of the same cheap pizza that Doordash is providing to anyone else. Doordash is behaving rationally here. They need to capture the mindshare of users. By providing pizza delivery at prices that are lower than economically viable, Doordash will get this. The pizza man is simply choosing to benefit while he can. Long live the pizza man!

colpabar 4y ago
If he wanted to really stick it to them, he'd complain that his pizzas were just dough and get himself some doordash credits :)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. Don't Doordash and the pizza company owner have a contractual relationship when the pizza shop owner agrees to the Terms of Service for using the Doordash app to order food? I have no clue if the doordash TOS forbids such usage, but it might?
- joshstrange 4y ago
  No, that was kind of the point. Doordash listed them without the restaurant's approval. In fact it was a surprise to the pizza place they were on DD.

dszoboszlay 4y ago

It may or may not be fraud as the letter of the law, but this is definitely the shadiest part of the story. Also a pretty lame thing to do. It would have been much more elegant to add some crazy overpriced option to your pizzas where you could make a huge margin. Like "gift wrap +$100" which would mean putting a $0.01 ribbon around the box. You could make much more money this way from Doordash with less hassle than switching certain orders to plain dough.

goodcanadian 4y ago

Would this be fraud? IANAL, but I am going to go against the prevailing trend and suggest that it might actually be fraud. In ordering the pizzas from Doordash, he misrepresented himself to Doordash as a genuine customer (for financial gain). As far as not actually delivering complete pizzas, that may not be fraud as he did not misrepresent the product to . . . himself. However, I could also see an argument for it being fraud as Doordash bought pizzas from him, and he did not deliver pizzas (regardless of the fact that Doordash then sold the "pizzas" back to him for less).