9 ms·

Lawsuit accuses DoorDash of charging iPhone users more than others

88 points by carride 3y ago

isaacfrond 3y ago
I've never ordered food delivered to my house. Let's make that more explicit. never I found this novel thing called cooking. Really cuts down on hyper-processed food, salt and fat intake too. I find the whole discussion alienating.
- whatarethembits 3y ago
  There’s this thing called travel, where one might go to a different city or country via a car/motorcycle/train/plane. Often people end up staying at “temporary houses” where you’d have access to a bed and a bathroom. But often these don’t include a kitchen. Now for reasons that might be difficult to understand, these people often choose to consume food while they’re away from home, as opposed to just taking a bit of break from eating until they’re back. In situations like that, among others, ordering online appears as a decent option.
- memalign 3y ago
  Here’s another perspective: Having a young child eats up every free moment. Being able to order a wide variety of tasty food with a few taps has been truly life-changing.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
noahmbarr 3y ago
While deplorable, is price discrimination along non-protected customer segments (“classes”) illegal?
- elashri 3y ago
  [removed] Edit: Seems like I misunderstood the parent usage of class to refer to the terms as a sociological term not as its US legal term. Sorry about that
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    This is something that's not really worth considering unless you want to pick a fight. You just look it up and see if it is true or not. edit: Ah, "customer segments" vs. "classes"; I didn't understand the misunderstanding.
  - lolpython 3y ago
    I think OP was just using the definition of "class" as in a larger group of people that could file a lawsuit. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action
  - horsawlarway 3y ago
    He's using a specific legal term in the US. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group A protected class is a group that is illegal to discriminate against in this manner, in the United States (and several other legal systems). "Phone OS" is not a protected class. Many other things are, though, such as Race, Religion, Sex, etc... Varying a bit by jurisdiction and legal system.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  I don't even think it's deplorable, if it's possible to charge iPhone users more, do it. They'll pay. It also doesn't matter if it's illegal; they're suing because the entire fee system may be fraudulent, and since they're hiding this alleged iPhone tax in arbitrarily named and applied fees, it's relevant. Even worse imo, if it's held to be true, Doordash will be in real existence-threatening trouble with iPhone users and will have to increase its marketing spending towards them drastically.
  - pleb_nz 3y ago
ketchupdebugger 3y ago
Really depends on if the cost increase is due to Apple taking a cut. Restaurants usually charges more on these delivery apps anyways due to higher fees. It is usually cheaper to call your order into the restaurant and pick up than it is ordering via these app. Delivery apps are an interesting industry because it seems that no one is making money. Delivery apps are not profitable, delivery people are complaining they are not making enough, restaurants are complaining that they dont make enough via the apps, and customers are complaining of higher costs. The industry doesn't seem sustainable yet it keeps going
- justizin 3y ago
  > Really depends on if the cost increase is due to Apple taking a cut. Apple only takes a cut of virtual goods. This is why you cannot buy Kindle books on iOS without going to the website, but you can buy a television.
- SllX 3y ago
  Somebody’s salary is getting paid, a demand is being supplied and while they may not be making enough, there’s enough money to be made to attract deliverers. The music might one day stop, but it won’t be because anybody really wants it to. At the very worst, DoorDash or something like it might be the best way to put in a pickup order.
- richard___ 3y ago
  self driving cars
  - ketchupdebugger 3y ago
    I've seen delivery robots on the streets of Santa Monica, those are wild.
- s3p 3y ago
  This is not an in-app purchase in the same way a traditional subscription for an app might be processed. This goes entirely through DoorDash, and Apple does not see any % of revenue sent from the user to DD for their order.
a1371 3y ago
The title doesn't do it justice. These tactics are pretty dishonest I must admit: > Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand, even though none of it goes to the delivery person. I could see they justify this as value-based pricing. As in, it would have costed more for you to travel farther to get the food from that particular restaurant if you were to order pickup. The thing I find dishonest is labeling this the "delivery fee". I always thought that the money goes at this partially to the deliverer. > Offering an "Express" option that implies faster delivery, but then changing the wording to "Priority" in billing so it is not held to delivery times. > Charging an "Expanded Range Delivery" fee that seems based on distance but is really based on a restaurant's subscription level and demand. So things that bring no value to the user. The question is, if people know this will they vote with their dollars and move their business elsewhere? > Adding an undisclosed 99 cent "marketing fee," paid by the customer rather than the restaurant, to promote menu items that customers add to their carts. This one wins the cake. So each user is forced to pay a dollar to promote the items they have ordered from that menu. Let's call this preach-flation?
- belter 3y ago
  Many rental car companies, will charge you differently if you are picking up a car at certain airports depending on which country you say your residence is. Same car, picked up at the same airport, rented for the same amount of days with same insurances, with invoice issued out of the country where you are picking up the car. Different price...
  - cobaltoxide 3y ago
    [citation needed] I'm skeptical because you can get quotes for rental cars without entering any personal details. I guess they could geolocate based on your IP but it still sounds fishy.
    - _rs 3y ago
      At least in my experience the price online includes any/all “airport fees” (not named that, but for the sake of simplification) and when you pick up the car and prove that you live locally (ie are not using the airport) they will void those fees, but only usually if I ask
BoppreH 3y ago
Price discrimination is a great way to reduce customer trust. I have a friend that Uber consistently charges 20% less than me, for the same trip, at the same time, and before any obvious discounts. My best guess is that it's because of a trip to SF with a company card some years ago (high-cost area! Price insensitivity! Ka-ching goes the app). I will probably never learn the truth, but the result is that I avoid using Uber because it makes me feel ripped off.
- pinko 3y ago
  I've found Uber routinely sends me push notifications advertising a fare drop right after I've left the app without confirming a ride in order to check prices on Lyft -- and doesn't do so otherwise, even if I introduce the same delay. I.e., after delaying ride confirmation, if I don't switch apps I am not offered a lower fare, if I do switch apps I am offered a lower fare. So sleazy.
  - _rs 3y ago
    This happened to me once last year and I’ve never been able to reproduce it since, even when actually switching apps to cross check prices
- mecha_ghidorah 3y ago
  I am actually increasingly concerned about the potential for price discrimination to become endemic, widespread, and very impactful. I actually am beginning to think we should be looking into legislating against it.
laweijfmvo 3y ago
I got free DoorDash Premium or whatever (free delivery, less service fee) through my Chase card a while back. Don't use it that often, but recently wanted to order something and saw that every restaurant I was interested in "doesn't qualify for free delivery." So that was a total scam. Edit: This was a recent change, never used to have exceptions like this.
darth_avocado 3y ago
I wonder if this is just some experimentation on customer pricing. For example, my partner and I often compare the prices before ordering. Sometimes, we see different delivery rates (both on iPhone, without promo, as non dashpass subscribers).
unreal37 3y ago
Is that illegal? I don't see how you can sue someone over "discrimination based on phone manufacturer".
- kirykl 3y ago
  I think the lawsuit claim is DD fraudulently represents pricing to be based on one thing (distance, etc.)but it seems to be based on other factors, one of which may be phone make
ajdude 3y ago
See also: > DoorDash accused of charging iPhone users more than Android users for deliveries (sfgate.com) > 15 points by mikhael 2 days ago > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36007992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36007992
jrm4 3y ago
(Non-practicing) Lawyer here. Interesting for them to bring the case, because offhand I'm struggling to figure out what they believe to be illegal or discriminatory according to the law. We have a ton of law on the books on the things that ARE illegal to discriminate on (protected classes), and none strike me as particularly close to this. My "consumer protection" self loves to see companies get taken to task on this sort of thing, but I really don't see what law they think they have to stand on here.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > Whether DoorDash, in adopting, promoting, and/or charging its Delivery Fee, misrepresented material facts to consumers, like Plaintiffs, including the fact that: > o Dashers did not receive the Delivery Fee for their deliveries and that DoorDash retained the Delivery Fee completely; > o DoorDash knew or should have known that its advertising tactics regarding discounts on the Delivery Fee were misleading; > o DoorDash knew or should have known the Delivery Fee had nothing to do with the delivery of orders for consumers, like Plaintiffs, but instead related to the alleged cost to operate DoorDash’s technology; Personally, I'd be happy if labeling something with a common english meaning but the something doesn't reflect that common meaning counted as fraud when financial gain was involved.
  - jrm4 3y ago
    If there's any guarantee (or reasonable reliance) on these facts I guess? But seems like this could be weaseled out of ...
- J5892 3y ago
  As an Android user, I sometimes feel like I should be a protected class. But I get cheaper DoorDash orders, so that's good enough for me.
satvikpendem 3y ago
If people want to keep ordering takeout despite all these fees, is it not on them to vote with their dollars? It's also well known that iPhone users pay more than Android users, so I don't see why this sort of price discrimination would be bad, per se, much less illegal (what protected classes are being infringed upon here?), because, again, simply stop ordering takeout if the price is too high.
exabrial 3y ago
Huh? No no no, it's just "Optimizing Consumer Payments". This totally isn't a crime.
hnburnsy 3y ago
From the lawsuit quoting Door Dash terms and conditions... > DoorDash is not in the delivery business, does not provide delivery services, and is not a common carrier. DoorDash provides the Services to facilitate the transmission of orders by Users to Merchants, including orders for pickup or delivery by Contractors and/or Merchants. Amazingly ridiculous.

88 points by carride 3y ago

I've never ordered food delivered to my house. Let's make that more explicit. never I found this novel thing called cooking. Really cuts down on hyper-processed food, salt and fat intake too. I find the whole discussion alienating.

whatarethembits 3y ago
There’s this thing called travel, where one might go to a different city or country via a car/motorcycle/train/plane. Often people end up staying at “temporary houses” where you’d have access to a bed and a bathroom. But often these don’t include a kitchen. Now for reasons that might be difficult to understand, these people often choose to consume food while they’re away from home, as opposed to just taking a bit of break from eating until they’re back. In situations like that, among others, ordering online appears as a decent option.
memalign 3y ago
Here’s another perspective: Having a young child eats up every free moment. Being able to order a wide variety of tasty food with a few taps has been truly life-changing.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

noahmbarr 3y ago

While deplorable, is price discrimination along non-protected customer segments (“classes”) illegal?

elashri 3y ago
[removed] Edit: Seems like I misunderstood the parent usage of class to refer to the terms as a sociological term not as its US legal term. Sorry about that
- pessimizer 3y ago
  This is something that's not really worth considering unless you want to pick a fight. You just look it up and see if it is true or not. edit: Ah, "customer segments" vs. "classes"; I didn't understand the misunderstanding.
- lolpython 3y ago
  I think OP was just using the definition of "class" as in a larger group of people that could file a lawsuit. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  He's using a specific legal term in the US. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group A protected class is a group that is illegal to discriminate against in this manner, in the United States (and several other legal systems). "Phone OS" is not a protected class. Many other things are, though, such as Race, Religion, Sex, etc... Varying a bit by jurisdiction and legal system.
pessimizer 3y ago
I don't even think it's deplorable, if it's possible to charge iPhone users more, do it. They'll pay. It also doesn't matter if it's illegal; they're suing because the entire fee system may be fraudulent, and since they're hiding this alleged iPhone tax in arbitrarily named and applied fees, it's relevant. Even worse imo, if it's held to be true, Doordash will be in real existence-threatening trouble with iPhone users and will have to increase its marketing spending towards them drastically.
- pleb_nz 3y ago

ketchupdebugger 3y ago

Really depends on if the cost increase is due to Apple taking a cut. Restaurants usually charges more on these delivery apps anyways due to higher fees. It is usually cheaper to call your order into the restaurant and pick up than it is ordering via these app. Delivery apps are an interesting industry because it seems that no one is making money. Delivery apps are not profitable, delivery people are complaining they are not making enough, restaurants are complaining that they dont make enough via the apps, and customers are complaining of higher costs. The industry doesn't seem sustainable yet it keeps going

justizin 3y ago
> Really depends on if the cost increase is due to Apple taking a cut. Apple only takes a cut of virtual goods. This is why you cannot buy Kindle books on iOS without going to the website, but you can buy a television.
SllX 3y ago
Somebody’s salary is getting paid, a demand is being supplied and while they may not be making enough, there’s enough money to be made to attract deliverers. The music might one day stop, but it won’t be because anybody really wants it to. At the very worst, DoorDash or something like it might be the best way to put in a pickup order.
richard___ 3y ago
self driving cars
- ketchupdebugger 3y ago
  I've seen delivery robots on the streets of Santa Monica, those are wild.
s3p 3y ago
This is not an in-app purchase in the same way a traditional subscription for an app might be processed. This goes entirely through DoorDash, and Apple does not see any % of revenue sent from the user to DD for their order.

a1371 3y ago

The title doesn't do it justice. These tactics are pretty dishonest I must admit: > Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand, even though none of it goes to the delivery person. I could see they justify this as value-based pricing. As in, it would have costed more for you to travel farther to get the food from that particular restaurant if you were to order pickup. The thing I find dishonest is labeling this the "delivery fee". I always thought that the money goes at this partially to the deliverer. > Offering an "Express" option that implies faster delivery, but then changing the wording to "Priority" in billing so it is not held to delivery times. > Charging an "Expanded Range Delivery" fee that seems based on distance but is really based on a restaurant's subscription level and demand. So things that bring no value to the user. The question is, if people know this will they vote with their dollars and move their business elsewhere? > Adding an undisclosed 99 cent "marketing fee," paid by the customer rather than the restaurant, to promote menu items that customers add to their carts. This one wins the cake. So each user is forced to pay a dollar to promote the items they have ordered from that menu. Let's call this preach-flation?

belter 3y ago
Many rental car companies, will charge you differently if you are picking up a car at certain airports depending on which country you say your residence is. Same car, picked up at the same airport, rented for the same amount of days with same insurances, with invoice issued out of the country where you are picking up the car. Different price...
- cobaltoxide 3y ago
  [citation needed] I'm skeptical because you can get quotes for rental cars without entering any personal details. I guess they could geolocate based on your IP but it still sounds fishy.
  - _rs 3y ago
    At least in my experience the price online includes any/all “airport fees” (not named that, but for the sake of simplification) and when you pick up the car and prove that you live locally (ie are not using the airport) they will void those fees, but only usually if I ask

BoppreH 3y ago

Price discrimination is a great way to reduce customer trust. I have a friend that Uber consistently charges 20% less than me, for the same trip, at the same time, and before any obvious discounts. My best guess is that it's because of a trip to SF with a company card some years ago (high-cost area! Price insensitivity! Ka-ching goes the app). I will probably never learn the truth, but the result is that I avoid using Uber because it makes me feel ripped off.

pinko 3y ago
I've found Uber routinely sends me push notifications advertising a fare drop right after I've left the app without confirming a ride in order to check prices on Lyft -- and doesn't do so otherwise, even if I introduce the same delay. I.e., after delaying ride confirmation, if I don't switch apps I am not offered a lower fare, if I do switch apps I am offered a lower fare. So sleazy.
- _rs 3y ago
  This happened to me once last year and I’ve never been able to reproduce it since, even when actually switching apps to cross check prices
mecha_ghidorah 3y ago
I am actually increasingly concerned about the potential for price discrimination to become endemic, widespread, and very impactful. I actually am beginning to think we should be looking into legislating against it.

laweijfmvo 3y ago

I got free DoorDash Premium or whatever (free delivery, less service fee) through my Chase card a while back. Don't use it that often, but recently wanted to order something and saw that every restaurant I was interested in "doesn't qualify for free delivery." So that was a total scam. Edit: This was a recent change, never used to have exceptions like this.

darth_avocado 3y ago

I wonder if this is just some experimentation on customer pricing. For example, my partner and I often compare the prices before ordering. Sometimes, we see different delivery rates (both on iPhone, without promo, as non dashpass subscribers).

unreal37 3y ago

Is that illegal? I don't see how you can sue someone over "discrimination based on phone manufacturer".

kirykl 3y ago
I think the lawsuit claim is DD fraudulently represents pricing to be based on one thing (distance, etc.)but it seems to be based on other factors, one of which may be phone make

ajdude 3y ago

See also: > DoorDash accused of charging iPhone users more than Android users for deliveries (sfgate.com) > 15 points by mikhael 2 days ago > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36007992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36007992

jrm4 3y ago

(Non-practicing) Lawyer here. Interesting for them to bring the case, because offhand I'm struggling to figure out what they believe to be illegal or discriminatory according to the law. We have a ton of law on the books on the things that ARE illegal to discriminate on (protected classes), and none strike me as particularly close to this. My "consumer protection" self loves to see companies get taken to task on this sort of thing, but I really don't see what law they think they have to stand on here.

lesuorac 3y ago
> Whether DoorDash, in adopting, promoting, and/or charging its Delivery Fee, misrepresented material facts to consumers, like Plaintiffs, including the fact that: > o Dashers did not receive the Delivery Fee for their deliveries and that DoorDash retained the Delivery Fee completely; > o DoorDash knew or should have known that its advertising tactics regarding discounts on the Delivery Fee were misleading; > o DoorDash knew or should have known the Delivery Fee had nothing to do with the delivery of orders for consumers, like Plaintiffs, but instead related to the alleged cost to operate DoorDash’s technology; Personally, I'd be happy if labeling something with a common english meaning but the something doesn't reflect that common meaning counted as fraud when financial gain was involved.
- jrm4 3y ago
  If there's any guarantee (or reasonable reliance) on these facts I guess? But seems like this could be weaseled out of ...
J5892 3y ago
As an Android user, I sometimes feel like I should be a protected class. But I get cheaper DoorDash orders, so that's good enough for me.

satvikpendem 3y ago

If people want to keep ordering takeout despite all these fees, is it not on them to vote with their dollars? It's also well known that iPhone users pay more than Android users, so I don't see why this sort of price discrimination would be bad, per se, much less illegal (what protected classes are being infringed upon here?), because, again, simply stop ordering takeout if the price is too high.

exabrial 3y ago

Huh? No no no, it's just "Optimizing Consumer Payments". This totally isn't a crime.

hnburnsy 3y ago

From the lawsuit quoting Door Dash terms and conditions... > DoorDash is not in the delivery business, does not provide delivery services, and is not a common carrier. DoorDash provides the Services to facilitate the transmission of orders by Users to Merchants, including orders for pickup or delivery by Contractors and/or Merchants. Amazingly ridiculous.