Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States

California Introduces Law To Stop Delivery Apps Screwing Over Restaurants (vice.com) 144

Posted by BeauHD from the cease-and-desist dept.
On Tuesday, California State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) introduced legislation to protect restaurants from being exploited by food delivery platforms that add restaurants without permission and withhold customer data. Motherboard reports: For years now, companies such as DoorDash, GrubHub, Postmates, and Uber Eats have engaged in shady practices to add more restaurants to their platforms, extract more fees from restaurants and customers, and defeat rival platforms. One consequence of this arrangement is that delivery apps do not share information with restaurants about where customers are located or how to get their feedback. According to a press release about the proposed legislation, this means restaurants have little control over the customer experience and the data may even be used by platforms to drive customers to so-called "host kitchens" that they operate.

Assembly Bill 2149 (the Fair Food Delivery Act) would require platforms to not only share customer information with restaurants but reach an agreement with restaurants before adding them onto the food delivery app. The hope with AB 2149 is that by giving restaurants the ability to opt-out of being added to the platforms (or get the customer data if they opt-in), there will be less of this exploitative extraction directed at restaurants. As for protecting workers from exploitation, Gonzalez also introduced bill AB 5, which went into effect this year and promises to reclassify gig workers (including delivery drivers) as employees owed a minimum wage, benefits, and dignity that these platforms deny them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Introduces Law To Stop Delivery Apps Screwing Over Restaurants More

California Introduces Law To Stop Delivery Apps Screwing Over Restaurants

Comments Filter:

  • Should have started with Yelp (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @07:50PM (#59721922)

    the root of all evil.

  • This is proposed legislation...

    It has a long way to go before it becomes a law.

    • Also, it's not "host" kitchens, it's "ghost" kitchens with a "g". Ghost kitchens don't host anyone. That's the point. They're invisible.

      Someone should tell the writer or the person who wrote the summary. I'm not sure which one made the mistake and I'm too lazy to check.

  • These apps have gotten me to purchase from restaurants that I had never heard of before, and sure as hell would not have gone to in person otherwise.

    One consequence of this arrangement is that delivery apps do not share information with restaurants about where customers are located or how to get their feedback.

    While I understand the importance of market research, I would be very put off if my feedback were solicited while trying to enjoy a meal. To the point of choosing not to eat there again. If I feel like providing feedback, I will volunteer it. And I will do so with or without the presence of an app.

    I suspect this move has something to do with protecting full tim

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by quonset ( 4839537 )

      Did these companies authorize they be included on these apps? Are these companies getting feedback from these customers? Are these companies being illegally charged for a service they didn't agree to?

      If you're running a business and do not explicitly give your permission to be part of some program, you have every right to be ticked off. As a previous story related, people were calling these restaurants asking where their food was. The restaurant had no idea what the people were talking about until it wa

      • Re:Clown World (Score:4, Insightful)

        by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:28PM (#59722060) Journal

        Did these companies authorize they be included on these apps?

        I don't really see why they should have to. If someone hires me to go pick up their groceries for them, should the grocery store have to consent to that business transaction ? Apart from the fact that someone is making a purchase at their restaurant, I don't see what the restaurant has to do with anything. I don't see why it's their any of their business.

        Are these companies getting feedback from these customers?

        I addressed that in my comment. Please give reading it a try.

        Are these companies being illegally charged for a service they didn't agree to?

        I don't know but I don't see how they could be. How would that work ? You can't just show up the restaurant, as a delivery driver, and demand money from the restaurant that they didn't agree to.

        If you're running a business and do not explicitly give your permission to be part of some program, you have every right to be ticked off

        By that logic I should be pissed if my restaurant shows up in Google search results.

        As a previous story related, people were calling these restaurants asking where their food was.

        Thank-you. THIS is a legitimate complaint (and yes I should have RTFA). However, I still don't think the answer is banning the apps. Maybe a lawsuit or two that claims that the delivery app was fraudulently falsely advertising that they were affiliated with the restaurant and that the restaurant was responsible for delivery ? If the app makes it clear that they are accepting all responsibility for delivery and the restaurant is not involved (Skip the Dishes makes this *very* clear, for example) then this shouldn't be an issue.

        • Re:Clown World (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:46PM (#59722098)
          I don't see what the restaurant has to do with anything. I don't see why it's their any of their business.

          A restaurant can choose to sell to whoever they'd like, so long as it isn't a protected class.

          Maybe a lawsuit or two that claims that the delivery app was fraudulently falsely advertising that they were affiliated with the restaurant and that the restaurant was responsible for delivery ?

          You have clearly never been involved in a lawsuit. A basic lawsuit in the US is tens of thousands for a very simple one. They quickly can get into the hundreds of thousands. A single restaurant shouldn't have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to defend their reputation from a shitty money-losing private equity flip company.

          • A restaurant can choose to sell to whoever they'd like, so long as it isn't a protected class.

            I agree. They can also choose not to do business with delivery drivers for those apps. They'd have to figure out how to recognize and enforce their "blacklist" but it's 100% their right. I'm not disputing that.

            My point is that they are trying to outlaw a transaction between two 3rd parties that involves someone coming to their restaurant, buying food and leaving presumably without causing any harm what-so-ever. Is that not a crummy thing to do? Why should they care unless there is measurable damages (please

            • Re:Clown World (Score:5, Insightful)

              by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @09:10PM (#59722166)
              I concede that's a potential problem and one that the app companies have a moral responsibility, if not a legal one, to remedy.

              It's not a potential problem. It's a very real problem that restaurants are dealing with right now.

              If restaurants want to do delivery, then it's up to them who they want to make deliveries for them. A small business lives and dies on reputations, and every bad delivery is a lost customer.

              I work in a retail business and we do our business and do not allow other companies to do delivery for us for this exact reason. Our delivery service is awesome. Somebody else's....?

            • I concede that's a potential problem and one that the app companies have a moral responsibility, if not a legal one, to remedy.

              Um, well see that’s exactly what they’re trying to do. Legally require a remedy.

              If it did no harm the business, the business would not oppose it.

              The businesses cannot address customer issues if they don’t know the customers, and this is hurting their reputation.

              The whole thing sounds pretty reasonable as, oddly, even the opponents concede.

              • Companies do not have morals, and any time they show morals, it's a PR stunt. If a lawyer found a loophole that allowed a clickbait shithole like Buzzfeed to publish nudes of a minor, you can bet they would do it repeatedly.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dryeo ( 100693 )

                  Companies do not have morals

                  That's only mostly true for some companies, in particular large and/or public companies. Lots of small companies with only one owner or a couple of owners do have the morals of their owner.
                  Many a restaurant is a sole proprietorship or family run business.
                  Even large businesses can have morals, when Henry Ford wanted to push his morals on his large successful business, he bought out the other owners (stock) and proceeded to do things per his morals.

            • Yup. The problems are real. Yet the right to buy something myself and then sell it to someone else is a fiercely guarded right. We already have laws aimed at preventing misrepresentation in the marketplace. We don't have that many against people being stupid when complaining. The right to run your mouth is often offensive, but pretty central to our democracy.

              Laws preventing people from buying and selling what they buy are dangerous.

              Laws against people complaining are dangerous.

              If you're absolutely set on pr

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DogDude ( 805747 )
                Yet the right to buy something myself and then sell it to someone else is a fiercely guarded right.

                No. You have no right to buy something. That's not a right or a law anywhere in the US. You can't be discriminated against based on a protected class (race, sex, religion, etc.), but you have no right to be able to buy anything, otherwise. The business I work for regularly declines to sell stuff to people, fox example.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dryeo ( 100693 )

                The local grocery store often has things on sale along with a limit. They're free to limit what they sell to you as long as it isn't aimed at a minority, so only allowing someone to buy 2 cartons of eggs is part of their freedom.

            • Can I charge money for GrubHub orders? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @09:44PM (#59722244)

              My point is that they are trying to outlaw a transaction between two 3rd parties that involves someone coming to their restaurant, buying food and leaving presumably without causing any harm what-so-ever. Is that not a crummy thing to do?

              Here's a part you're missing. If you own a restaurant, GrubHub is representing you, without your consent. They are advertising your menu and your prices. Want to raise your prices?...well...GrubHub wasn't aware and now everyone ordering there is PISSED that they think they're getting a meal for last year's prices and finding out at the last minute, they have to pay more or cancel. As someone else pointed out, you work hard to perfect your pizza recipe, but the delivery driver delivers it 30 minutes late, drops it on the floor, and it tastes like amateur garbage. You have no power to reprimand the driver.

              The customer, on the other hand, is eating at your food for the first time and thinks you sell garbage pizza. They're going to blame you, not the driver or GrubHub. Want to change your hours? Well...I hope GrubHub knows....because otherwise, you decide to close an hour earlier on Sunday and now people are pissed at you because GrubHub was taking orders and they were getting canceled. Was it you fault? No....but who is the customer going to blame?...you the small time pizzeria they've never heard of or their beloved content-scraping app? It's very reasonable to grant a business the right to opt out of any service that chooses to represent them to their customers without their consent.

              Let's put it a different way. Can I make a website that proxies to GrubHub, but charges and extra 20% on the price? Can I put GrubHub's logo all over the page? Can I specify GrubHub's hours, terms and conditions, and options? Would they be as kind as you are advocating the restaurants be and just be happy with the business they're getting from my app?

              As a side note, these companies are cancer. Many of them pay a fixed fee per delivery and use your tip to pay the fixed fee. If someone is getting $3 from DoorDash to deliver your pizza. You tip $2.50, the delivery person gets $3, not $5.50. They get the same fee if you tip or if you don't (https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20703434/delivery-app-tip-pay-theft-doordash-amazon-flex-instacart [theverge.com]) They are terrible people and the world would be a better place if they were shut down. It's not directly relevant to this issue, but something everyone should know if they give them business.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by havana9 ( 101033 )
                Another facto is that in case of instead a bad tasting pizza you get a poisoned one, who is to blame? It's the same problem that exists with rides like uber eats and glovo. A restaurant couldn't legitimately avoid liabilities controlling the delivery chain.

              • Just to add to your examples with another one based on a news story from a few weeks back:

                Grubhub decides to list that your pizzeria also serves Thai food. Why? Well, either due to a malfunction in their scraping or due to someone operating a pop-up kitchen with your restaurant's name. In the former case, people are getting their orders canceled and then blame you for listing menu items that you don't really serve. (They won't blame Grubhub.)

                In the latter case, they might be getting food delivered, but it's

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by c ( 8461 )

              I concede that's a potential problem and one that the app companies have a moral responsibility, if not a legal one, to remedy.

              The only time these companies pay any attention to moral responsibilities is if someone makes them legal responsibilities and then actually enforces those laws.

        • However, I still don't think the answer is banning the apps.

          Who proposed banning the apps?

          I read the excerpt twice, and it doesn’t mention this anywhere.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          I don't really see why they should have to. If someone hires me to go pick up their groceries for them, should the grocery store have to consent to that business transaction ?

          Remember the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" trope? Well, how about refusing service to bad carry out services that throw the groceries on the floor and deliver them an hour later after the ice cream has melted.

          Apart from the fact that someone is making a purchase at their restaurant, I don't see what the restau

        • If the app makes it clear that they are accepting all responsibility for delivery and the restaurant is not involved (Skip the Dishes makes this *very* clear, for example) then this shouldn't be an issue.

          They don't. Now what?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by guruevi ( 827432 )

            Not sure what the original poster meant with that, but the delivery company is always responsible for the delivery, because that's who you're contracting with.

            • "the delivery company is always responsible"

              But the restaurant that the delivery company claimed to represent takes the blame, at least in the short term. It is not reasonable to expect every potential customer to follow all local civil proceedings to determine who turned out to have a legitimate tort and it is no plausible that every restaurant that was harm can have their reputation made whole.

              This is the general problem with the "everything should be a civil tort" crowd: the magical thinking that there a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by teg ( 97890 )

          Did these companies authorize they be included on these apps?

          I don't really see why they should have to. If someone hires me to go pick up their groceries for them, should the grocery store have to consent to that business transaction ? Apart from the fact that someone is making a purchase at their restaurant, I don't see what the restaurant has to do with anything. I don't see why it's their any of their business.

          For hotels, this is a big issue. Websites like hotels.com and their ilk has been known to add hotels they don't have agreements with and then just add text like "no rooms available". This could cause these hotels to lose customers, as people looking for hotels in an area mistakenly believe that the hotel is full instead of contacting them

        • If someone hires me to go pick up their groceries for them, should the grocery store have to consent to that business transaction ?

          Not for one person, but if a delivery service brings in large orders at odd and unpredictable times, you have every right to be included on a voluntary and negotiated basis.

          Eons ago when the world was young, one of my first IT jobs was dairy ordering for the California grocery chain Alpha Beta. Because dairy products are more numerous and quicker to expire than any other food category, we had to match the daily ebb and flow of customer traffic with the timing of orders, which in those days came from a lar

        • The issue is that these delivery companies are claiming (or at least implying) to be representatives of these restaurants, which they most certainly are not.

          In a perfect world hiring a third party to deliver goods for you wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world, and these 3rd party delivery companies are causing problems for these restaurants, so something needs to be done about it. Requiring these delivery companies to have an agreement in place with the restaurants before represe

      • That is just a dumb argument. Did they advertise their menu online. Did they give Google and every other search engine permission to SHOW THEIR WEBSITE to anyone?
        Only in clownworld would getting free customers be a bad thing. IE "Oh noes we got twice as many orders today than we thought we would!!! Better increase stock for the increased PROFITS coming our way."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      But let's shoot ourselves in the foot and outlaw things we don't like because we don't understand, even if it means shooting ourselves in the foot.

      How many successful restaurants do you own?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by garett_spencley ( 193892 )

        Me, personally? None. But my family owns more than one and I have been very close to people in food service my entire life. None of my relatives have ever complained about these apps.

        I have also been in business for myself for 17 years, so I do know a thing or two about running a businesses, albeit not a restaurant.

        On that note, if you're ever in Windsor, Ontario Canada stop by Thyme Kitchen [thymetogo.ca]. Or use an app to get it delivered. Either way we appreciate your business!

        • So your family's business does takeout? Some of the restaurants victimized don't. It ain't the "delivery service" that takes the PR hit.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          I've been in retail for just under 20 years. We don't allow anybody else to deliver our products because we have no way of guaranteeing the quality of that service. I find it hard the believe that somebody who has family in the restaurant business would have a difficult time understanding this relatively simple idea.

    • Re:Clown World (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Strill ( 6019874 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:09PM (#59721992)

      It's to protect people from fraudulently delivering food from different restaurants under your restaurant's name. It's also stopping people who don't take the proper steps to keep the food warm in-transit, or who wait an hour before delivering it. All these things hurt legitimate restaurant's reputations.

      • Re:Clown World (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:32PM (#59722070)

        Its precisely this - we have a situation where quite often the app presents you with a restaurant, offers you a menu to choose from and guarantees delivery to you.

        Only the restaurant doesn't know anything about this, all they see is some random person come in and demand take out in some form or another - even if the restaurant doesn't do take out.

        That random person then delivers the food to you, and throughout all of this you think you have had a relationship with the restaurant when in-fact you haven't - you've had a relationship with the app and the delivery person. You literally received second hand food. You could have bought it off of Craigslist for all the difference there is in the setups.

        So when that delivery person is 45 minutes late and delivers your food cold, shoved into doggy bags or worse, or calls you up and says that the restaurant is out of such-and-such when in-fact the delivery service had a menu from two years ago, and you bitch and moan about the restaurant to all your friends on FaceTweet, the restaurant is hurt through utterly no fault of its own.

        And when the app is actually sending the delivery person to a completely different restaurant trading under the good restaurants name, but without the regular sanitation health checks and food health certificates, and you get sick or wonder why your fillet steak is actually stewing steak, and you go on FaceTweet and very loudly bitch and moan, then the restaurant is hurt even more.

        Oh, I know its Slashdot logic to insist that it's all good for the restaurant to not have a choice in any of this, because "exposure!!!!!", but at the end of the day the restaurant should have the ultimate say in this - whether they appear on the platform at all, and that choice should not consist of "lets check today to see which platforms signed us up without telling us and go opt out".

        Quite simply, these delivery apps started out all good but they have, like so many other "disruptive" industries, have grown to be evil over time - they are happily deceiving customers and suppliers alike, and need to be reined in.

        • GrubHub does some shady shit as I've said before. If they don't have a driver available the restaurant is listed as CLOSED. Really great for local business when people see that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          Not sure about some other apps, but all the apps I've worked with (Doordash, Grubhub) have a direct relationship with the customer. You order the food from the app, you pay through the app, you get refunds through the app if the food is not good and you give feedback through the app.

          • Except the customer is seeing this as a relationship with the restaurant. Suppose I order a pizza from John's Pizza Shop via GrubHub. The pizza is delivered 45 minutes later, cold and with the wrong toppings. The driver insists that the restaurant got it wrong and was late with the order. In reality, though, the restaurant didn't even take the order. It was a pop-up kitchen operating under John's name. In addition, the driver picked up the food on time but stopped to talk to some friends before delivering t

    • No one asks you, how is the meal?

      This is only one point in many and no one "shoots" anything. Ghost websites are fraudulent! FRAUD.

      These weasels and squatters believe every business can be interdicted by someone else, MASQUERADING as the business. They LIE that they are the business. They gin up images, menus, and everything else to misrepresent themselves as the restaurant, stealing trademarks, tradenames, menus, and other proprietary bits of people that already own them. FRAUD.

      We DO indeed understand. THI

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      I would never order from them. Basically you are trusting the quality and health of your food, to the cheapest possible, living in poverty, can not afford the food they are delivering, person. Now add in zero feedback to the restaurant and you have a recipe for missing food and food poisoning. I would only order for delivery from a place that directly employs the delivers and ensures their quality, less their restaurant will suffer.

      I think it is insane to trust your health to the cheapest possible delivere

    • at the end of the day I think these apps can only help restaurants by increasing business and reducing the overhead of maintaining a delivery service.

      Then you haven't been paying attention to the fallout they've created.

    • These apps have gotten me to purchase from restaurants that I had never heard of before, and sure as hell would not have gone to in person otherwise.

      Restaurants are not movie theaters in that eating there rather than online is an integral and much more enjoyable part of the experience.

  • Privacy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by andymadigan ( 792996 )
    <quote>One consequence of this arrangement is that delivery apps do not share information with restaurants about where customers are located or how to get their feedback.</quote>

    In other words, this law would require DoorDash to hand over my e-mail address and home address to any restaurant I order from, so that they can spam me (electronically and through snail mail) for eternity.

    NO! This is exactly what the CCPA was supposed to prevent!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Wait... you're happy with Door Dash's spam & selling your information, but not the restaurants who are making your food? How does that make any sense at all?
    • All right, having read the actual bill, I see that information sharing does not apply if the user has opted-out of having their information sold under the CCPA.

      If I were, for example, DoorDash (who say in their privacy policy they don't sell information). I would encourage all of my customers to opt-out, thus avoiding the information sharing requirements of the bill.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      In other words, this law would require DoorDash to hand over my e-mail address and home address to any restaurant I order from, so that they can spam me (electronically and through snail mail) for eternity.

      You had no problem giving it to DoorDash so they could spam you electronically and through snail mail. Why were you willing to give it to them and not the outfit actually making the food?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        Because you can control the 1 provider you give it to. I do it by providing varying names and spellings or the + in e-mail. If they by law have to give it to everyone else, you don't know who has your information.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Because you can control the 1 provider you give it to. I do it by providing varying names and spellings or the + in e-mail. If they by law have to give it to everyone else, you don't know who has your information.

          You know exactly who else has your information, the restaurant that you placed the delivery order with. If you want anonymity, show up and pay cash. You're giving the same information to the restaurant that every other person ordering delivery has been and will be giving. Deal with it.

          • If I tell DoorDash to stop contacting me, they will. They're bound by law to allow me to opt out. I could tell a restaurant to stop contacting me 10 times and they'll still keep doing it, and they'll sell my information to anyone.

            I ordered from a pizza place (Patxi's) and opted-out of marketing as part of the order process. They ignored that and spammed me anyway. I unsubscribed. Then they snail mailed me, and then e-mailed me to follow up on the snail mail.

            Have you ever even seen an independent restaurant

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              If I tell DoorDash to stop contacting me, they will. They're bound by law to allow me to opt out.

              They're not, but don't let a lawyer's knowledge of the law get in your way.

              I could tell a restaurant to stop contacting me 10 times and they'll still keep doing it, and they'll sell my information to anyone.

              Because they have an exception from the "law" that DoorDash does not. Got it.

              I ordered from a pizza place (Patxi's) and opted-out of marketing as part of the order process. They ignored that and spammed me a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      This is certainly a law that would be nightmare on many levels, with many unintended consequences. If partners are required to ignore privacy and share customer data, then we are in a world where a lawsuit means you have no privacy. The people who sell you a pack of tape has to share your data with the tape manufacturer, who then has to share it with everyone else.

      I understand that restaurants want control of their product. I also understand if I buy a can of beans, I can sell that beans for whatever p

      • Each and every restaurant having their own delivery people is not a friggin' monopoly situation. Words have meaning.

  • "California Introduces Law"

    No, fucktard.

    It's legislation. A bill. It's not a fucking law.
    Do you need to go back and review School House Rock to learn how a bill becomes a law?

  • Doesn't matter I agree 100%, shouldn't headlines and blurbs be somewhat neutral?

  • paying someone to pick up food for you? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @09:03PM (#59722138) Homepage Journal

    paying someone to pick up food for you is going to be illegal?
    I mean what the restaurants lose with this anyway?

    the delivery guys buy the food at list pricing. it's a much better deal than to sign up for the delivery services for a 10-30% cut of the food price going to the delivery company. if the restaurant is too busy to fullfill the order the delivery company is screwed, not the restaurant and this can happen with restaurants that are on contract with the delivery company as well. if the restaurant changes their menu it's the delivery companys fault not theirs if they don't update it.

    but more imporantly if I were to find a guy on craigslist to do the same for me.. whats the restaurant going to say? that they want to dictate what happens with the food after it leaves their door? FOOD DRM?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      just to add, I live in thailand and I would be delighted if I owned a restaurant and one of the local delivery companies added me on the list for free without having to pay a cut to the delivery company and it was just a steady stream of instant cash(not billed monthly) flowing into to my restaurant.

    • paying someone to pick up food for you is going to be illegal?

      No it won't be and the fact that you think it is shows how little thought or research you've put in before posting.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It would be fine if they were up front about what they were doing. Don't pretend to be the restaurant, don't set up a fake web page with an inaccurate menu, and make it extremely clear that when there is a problem with a delivery it's your fault and yours alone.

      They should really ask permission. I wouldn't use a delivery service that doesn't as the restaurant for permission, it's a sign they are scummy.

  • No cafeteria food at work so people working have to buy food locally. From a restaurant.
    The what, how and how of a food app... think of the restaurant...
    So now people with money who work have to find transport to some local restaurant, wait and get food in the correct gov approved way.
    Consume the food at the local restaurant as they may work for an app if they walk out with food?
    Walking with food could be a food app in use.
    Why are so many large brands still staying in CA again?
    The joy of big brand

  • Consumer law and protections could potentially simplify this process. A lot of these 'platforms' operate in a 'fly-by-night' fashion when it comes to legal aspects by trying to be a middleman when there's money to be made, and when there's problems, then they become invisible. If the platforms want to add restaurants without their permission, then they become customers of the restaurant, and in turn, the customers using the platforms should only deal with said platform. That means that the restaurant has no

  • "Gonzalez also introduced bill AB 5, which went into effect this year and promises to reclassify gig workers (including delivery drivers) as employees owed a minimum wage, benefits, and dignity that these platforms deny them."

    Dignity? Really? Denied? Maybe people are using these apps because they don't want to be someone's employee. Maybe Motherboard's "journalists" need a lesson in bias, because unquestioningly echoing the opinions of a lawmaker as if they were objective facts is not journalism, it's

  • Regulation of the delivery services is a great first step. But allowing restaurants to opt out, not so. Time for those who physically cannot go to a restaurant to start class action lawsuits against restaurants who opt out for discrimination. Drag these bass ackwards establishments into future, or close them.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close