Grubhub Hit With Lawsuit for Listing Restaurants Without Permission (eater.com) 154
Two restaurants have initiated a potential class-action lawsuit against GrubHub for allegedly listing 150,000 restaurants to its site without the businesses' permission. From a report: The Farmer's Wife in Sebastopol, California and Antonia's Restaurant in Hillsborough, NC filed the suit with Gibbs Law Group, accusing Grubhub of adding their restaurants to its site despite not entering into a partnership, which causes "significant damage to their hard-earned reputations, loss of control over their customers' dining experiences, loss of control over their online presence, and reduced consumer demand for their services." Grubhub has explicitly made this false partnership part of their business strategy. Last October, CEO Matt Maloney said the company would be piloting a new initiative of adding more restaurants to its searchable database without entering into an official partnership with them, so customers would believe they had more delivery options with Grubhub, and wouldn't switch to competitors.
It works like this: if you happened to order from a non-partnered restaurant, "the order doesn't go directly to the restaurant," says the lawsuit. "It goes instead to a Grubhub driver, who must first figure out how to contact the restaurant and place the order. Sometimes it's possible to place orders with the restaurant by phone, but other times the restaurant will only accept orders in person. The extra steps often lead to mistakes in customers' orders and often the restaurant won't receive the order at all." Grubhub also wouldn't warn restaurants before they were listed, which led to restaurants suddenly being inundated with Grubhub orders they never expected. Often, Grubhub would list outdated menus with the wrong prices, or include restaurants that don't even offer take-out, leading to canceled orders. The lawsuit includes screenshots from the pages Grubhub created for The Farmer's Wife and Antonia's, using their respective names and logos. The Farmer's Wife alleges the pages are "inaccurate and suggests that The Farmer's Wife is offering to make food that it does not actually make and has never made," which the lawsuit claims hurts the restaurant's reputation, and leads customers to become frustrated with service the restaurant never agreed to provide in the first place. And both restaurants say the language Grubhub uses suggests a partnership that doesn't exist, and in Antonia's case, was actively declined when Grubhub approached them. Further reading: Even If You're Trying To Avoid Grubhub By Calling Your Favorite Restaurant Directly, Grubhub Could Still Be Charging It A Fee; Meal-Delivery Company GrubHub is Buying Thousands of Restaurant Web Addresses, Preventing Mom and Pop From Owning Their Slice of Internet.
It works like this: if you happened to order from a non-partnered restaurant, "the order doesn't go directly to the restaurant," says the lawsuit. "It goes instead to a Grubhub driver, who must first figure out how to contact the restaurant and place the order. Sometimes it's possible to place orders with the restaurant by phone, but other times the restaurant will only accept orders in person. The extra steps often lead to mistakes in customers' orders and often the restaurant won't receive the order at all." Grubhub also wouldn't warn restaurants before they were listed, which led to restaurants suddenly being inundated with Grubhub orders they never expected. Often, Grubhub would list outdated menus with the wrong prices, or include restaurants that don't even offer take-out, leading to canceled orders. The lawsuit includes screenshots from the pages Grubhub created for The Farmer's Wife and Antonia's, using their respective names and logos. The Farmer's Wife alleges the pages are "inaccurate and suggests that The Farmer's Wife is offering to make food that it does not actually make and has never made," which the lawsuit claims hurts the restaurant's reputation, and leads customers to become frustrated with service the restaurant never agreed to provide in the first place. And both restaurants say the language Grubhub uses suggests a partnership that doesn't exist, and in Antonia's case, was actively declined when Grubhub approached them. Further reading: Even If You're Trying To Avoid Grubhub By Calling Your Favorite Restaurant Directly, Grubhub Could Still Be Charging It A Fee; Meal-Delivery Company GrubHub is Buying Thousands of Restaurant Web Addresses, Preventing Mom and Pop From Owning Their Slice of Internet.
Before Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Gets their panties in a bunch over this please read the article first. Some of these are higher end restaurants that don't even offer takeout. So someone places an order and their order gets declined or its no longer on the menu. The angry customer leaves bad reviews for something the restaurant didn't even know was happening or had any control over.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I was expecting the opposite. That folks here would call out Grubhub for the asshole scumbags that they are for assuming they're something special/important and can dictate terms to anyone they want.
Re:Before Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, I was expecting the opposite. That folks here would call out Grubhub for the asshole scumbags that they are for assuming they're something special/important and can dictate terms to anyone they want.
Knowledgeable people, most geeks, and people familiar with the process would most probably see who was really at fault. Ma and Pa Kettle would most likely blame the restaurant.
For instance, my wife is knowledgeable enough to do online banking and work with the various online applications to do with her job. She happens to be deathly afraid of COVID and has been working from home since the outbreak.
She wanted indian food. She knew the names of several restaurants in the area, and wanted to have food delivered from one of them.
She got tangled up online, had a lot of canceled orders and it was just a mess.
She asked me to look at it. I found that every restaurant on which I did a google search gave me as the first result, something that looked like the restaurant but was really a link to grubhub. The issues she was having just as in TFA, were that grubhub was offering services that the restaurant didn't provide, and in some cases menus that were no longer current.
It was a little challenging to find the restaurant's own native website. I don't know if this is an artifact of google or some arrangement between grubhub and google or some kind of perfidy that grubhub was doing, but it seemed like everything I clicked ultimately went to grubhub.
Finally I found a restaurant on wife's list that (a) offered takeout, and (b) for which I could find the actual native website, we made our order, and I went and got it.
We've done this a few times since then, with similar issues, although negotiation was easier after I knew what to look for. The impression I've gotten these last few months is that some restaurants tolerate grubhub, and others deeply resent it. That being the case, I'm not surprised at all that lawsuits eventually occurred.
But circling back to your point, you and I can see through this and figure out who the real culprit is. Regular non-geeks, probably not. In my example, wife and I have been together something like 30 years, and I've been a geek all my life, and was an early adopter of the internet (military contractor) long before regular people knew what it was. Yet, my wife, who's been with me since I was pounding out code on a VT100 attached to a 300 baud modem, hasn't absorbed enough computer lore in that time to see through Grubhub's sketchy business model.
Re:Before Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a little challenging to find the restaurant's own native website. I don't know if this is an artifact of google or some arrangement between grubhub and google or some kind of perfidy that grubhub was doing
Grubhub spends far more on SEO than any neighborhood Indian restaurant does or can, because of the scale at which they operate. That and because of the way Google is doing ads these days large operators like Grubhub can buy a big chunk of the first page of results for a lot of the popular terms for finding restaurants near you.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a little challenging to find the restaurant's own native website. I don't know if this is an artifact of google or some arrangement between grubhub and google or some kind of perfidy that grubhub was doing
Grubhub spends far more on SEO than any neighborhood Indian restaurant does or can, because of the scale at which they operate. That and because of the way Google is doing ads these days large operators like Grubhub can buy a big chunk of the first page of results for a lot of the popular terms for finding restaurants near you.
That must be it. Even for a very specific restaurant, it seemed like the entire first page of results all went to Grubhub.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a little challenging to find the restaurant's own native website. I don't know if this is an artifact of google or some arrangement between grubhub and google or some kind of perfidy that grubhub was doing
Grubhub spends far more on SEO than any neighborhood Indian restaurant does or can, because of the scale at which they operate. That and because of the way Google is doing ads these days large operators like Grubhub can buy a big chunk of the first page of results for a lot of the popular terms for finding restaurants near you.
That must be it. Even for a very specific restaurant, it seemed like the entire first page of results all went to Grubhub.
...or yelp, and then from there to Grubhub.
Re: Before Slashdot (Score:2)
its not my thing, its my wife's thing. I get yanked in when she gets frustrated.
besides, you and I know how to effectively use bookmarks but fred and ethyl mertz do not. and this is who their business practices affect.
Re: (Score:2)
its not my thing, its my wife's thing.
Ergo: user error.
you and I know how to effectively use bookmarks but fred and ethyl mertz do not
If Fred and Ethyl Mertz don't know how to drive, they should not buy a car. If they don't know how to operate a business in 2020, including an online presence, they should not run one.
Are you intentionally misunderstanding? We're talking the customers here. The shop owners were not informed that Grubhub was acting as their go-between, and now that it is becoming apparent, many of them are starting to sue, as they should. This isn't about them.
The reason it's an issue is that you have to be a geek to realize you're being scammed as a customer. So, congratulations, you can feel superior. Normal people have regular lives to live.
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't know how to operate a business in 2020, including an online presence, they should not run one.
Learn to read. The point is: they do not run an online business. Someone else is pretending they do, scams the profit, and burdens them with negative reviews on sites like yelp, there they are not even aware about.
Re:Before Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a little challenging to find the restaurant's own native website. I don't know if this is an artifact of google or some arrangement between grubhub and google or some kind of perfidy that grubhub was doing
Grubhub spends far more on SEO than any neighborhood Indian restaurant does or can, because of the scale at which they operate. That and because of the way Google is doing ads these days large operators like Grubhub can buy a big chunk of the first page of results for a lot of the popular terms for finding restaurants near you.
Isn't this just one of the unspoken truths about Google's core business model? Paid search is good for the ad buyer and good for Google. Google's claim is that paid search is also good for the consumer because Google is a good custodian of permitting only "good" ads. We've seen over and over again that the welfare of non-paying consumers will always be a lesser consideration compared to paying ad buyers. This situation will happen over and over again because that's what the economics of the business model dictate. Google should not be blamed for chasing dollars because all companies do that, but they should be blamed for the false propaganda that it is acting in the interests of the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
the welfare of non-paying consumers
You misspelled "products".
Re:Before Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Grubhub spends far more on SEO than any neighborhood Indian restaurant does or can, because of the scale at which they operate.
This does seem to be a business model that allows Grubhub to be parasitic on genuine businesses. There is nothing wrong with offering a listing service for small businesses, such as the old Yellow Pages, but Grubhub is not doing that, as far as I can see.
The trouble I see is that a bit of negative publicity, due to a Grubhub mistake, could severely damage a restaurant's reputation and future custom, and the restaurant could do nothing about it until it is too late. You do not get that sort of thing from a small ad in the Yellow Pages.
Re: (Score:2)
I have found that searching for the restaurant on Google maps and then clicking on the Website link in the information about the restaurant will usually work. You can't click on the "Menu" or "Reserve a Table" as those go to grubhub and opentable, possibly without the restaurant's permission.
Re: (Score:2)
An issue the place I work for sometimes has... Rather than walk into the restaurant to pick up the order the delivery person will use the drive-up window lane. So not only does it take longer for them to get and deliver the order, it makes our other customers have to wait longer to place theirs.
Then when I'm elsewhere in town on my day off I'll hear, "By the time I got the stuff it was...cold / the ice cream had melted / the drinks were watered down."
I assure them that's not our fault. But when I've mention
Re:Before Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )
"Gets their panties in a bunch over this please read the article first."
Apostate!
You read TFA?
With a low 6 figure uid?
Wait 'til your dad finds out you're using his account!
Re:Before Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
HE READ THE ARTICLE! GET HIM!
Re:Before Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
A rare instance where they won without a lawyer, GrubHub shut down the deceptive pages. When the pandemic hit, and everyone was pretty much forced to do takeout, guess which delivery option wasn't chosen? No GrubHub delivery option for those seven places.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a pretty open and shut case of trademark infringement - GrubHub is using these restaurants' name in their publications (website) without permission.
The problem is that GrubHub's strategy appears to be to infringe everyone's trademarks, and relent when a restaurant finds out and complains about it. Meanwhile continuing to infringe the trademarks of the restaurants which don't find out about it. The courts need
Re: (Score:3)
I am often skeptical of trademark claims, but in this case, GrubHub is very definitely creating confusion and it's quite clear that it is doing so willfully. This is exactly the situation where my sympathies turn to the trademark holder.
No website in 2020!? (Score:2)
That is pretty negligent. Tell them to go to the local web shop, and for $1000 or so they can get a reasonable site set up and managed, with no technical knowledge of their own. Claim the address on Google (the web shop will show them how) and they will get good ranking on Google.
There comes a point where you need basic business acumen. There is probably web shop within a a mile of where they operate from that would be happy to set them up.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a pandemic on, many restaurants don't have a spare thousand dollars to spend. Even before the pandemic, many a small restaurant was barely paying the owner a wage.
Re: (Score:3)
How many small restaurants trademark their name?
Personally, I think this shit should be criminally charged as fraud or such, or identity theft.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a pretty open and shut case of trademark infringement - GrubHub is using these restaurants' name in their publications (website) without permission.
That isn't at all how trademarks work, and quite rightly you should have noticed that there's no trademark related claims in the lawsuit.
A trademark protects something which always belongs to only you - your company image.
No, they really don't. A trade mark protects your chosen mark within a trade. Not your image or reputation.
That's why the lawsuit is actually claiming damages based on their reputation. That is a crime too, and one that can easily be shown grubhub is doing.
We are allowed to use a companies mark *so long as it is to represent the mark*, and so long as it is specifically
Re: (Score:3)
Grubhub even added takeout Vietnamese food to the menu of a Michenlin-starred Thai restaurant in San Francisco. [sfchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should be a criminal charge resulting in the business being suspended for a few years. If I impersonated someone else, put in a change of address or did a sim swap thingy to head off there contacts, I expect I'd end up in jail for a while.
So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is whether Grubhub should be allowed to become a business intermediary between a restaurant and its potential customers, without seeking that restaurant's consent. That certainly doesn't look fair to me.
If it just wanted to list restaurants, there doesn't seem to be any reason why it shouldn't.
But obviously Grubhub is in it for the money, which presumably must come from either the customer or the restaurant - or both.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:4, Insightful)
No! Grubhub is *taking orders* and doing delivery, inserting itself as middleman *without permission*, even to restaurants that don't do carry-out. Can you see the problem yet?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he is agreeing that it's a problem. That grubhub is violating Trademark by claiming to represent that brand, when they really have no affiliation. So among other things at *least* it would seem to be going against the trademarks of the restaurant owner.
Re:So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on how they do it.
As you know, iggymanz, many people are big fans of the countersink flanges that you manufacture. You're famous, right up there with the legendary Wilson. But with your fame came a secondary market, due to people selling their used countersink flanges, having to deal with your rather limited shipping capabilities (no personal criticism intended), etc.
As it happens, last year I started having hydraulic torque leak at unacceptably-low RQMs, and I contacted another poster in
Re: (Score:2)
This is closer to you claiming to be an authorized Iggymanz (TM) countersink flanges reseller.
automatic trademarks (Score:3)
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. You don't get any of that unless you pay my retainer.
Note that simply by using a name in trade, an enforceable "common law trademark" is created. Not nationally, but in the particular market area.
hawk, esq.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought common law was effectively paved over by civil law.
Re:So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The part that you are missing is that Grubhub then takes orders for that restaurant but doesn't tell the restaurant what is going on. They have had delivery drivers show up, take a table and then ask for the food in a "to go" box. How is the restaurant supposed to guarantee the quality of the food if it has been placed on a table, taken back to the kitchen before being put in a box?
To top it off, when the food arrives cold or badly packed, it is the restaurant that ends up with the bad ratings and damaged reputation.
The restaurant also takes the heat for no longer on the menu items that then can't be delivered to the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly what trademark law is supposed to protect against. Grubhub is violating the Lanham Act six ways to Sunday.
Normally a plaintiff needs to register their trademarks to recover monetary damages in federal court, but there's a good argument that Grubhub has violated the part that only needs a willful violation (15 U.S.C. section 1125: Dilution by blurring; dilution by tarnishment) to sustain recovery of "(1) defendant's profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action".
Grubhub's ham-handed actions are so far beyond the pale that I wonder what their lawyers told them about trying to deliver food for restaurants without a contract with that restaurant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My wording was deliberate; I think they made a point of not asking their lawyers.
But I am almost certain they do have lawyers on retainer, and I think those lawyers would have noticed this, and had a professional obligation to warn their clients. It would all be protected by attorney-client privilege, so I don't expect we will ever find out, but it would be fascinating to find out what lawyers told Grubhub.
Re: (Score:2)
Grubhub's ham-handed actions are so far beyond the pale that I wonder what their lawyers told them about trying to deliver food for restaurants without a contract with that restaurant.
I suspect that the legal advice was that the restaurants could not afford to take legal action, even if they had a good case, so go ahead with the legally-dubious activities. If the shit should really hit the fan with some major class action, run off with the money, and keep your head down for a bit in some nice location, then come back and do it all again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In addition to this, its not unknown for unauthorised Grubhub listings of good restaurants to actually have nothing to do with that restaurant at all, and instead be a back street set up that has nothing to do with the named restaurant, instead just doing lower standard food for Grubhub takeout only - literally someone trading on the restaurants name, and the restaurant getting all the negative feedback and damage to reputation.
Re: (Score:3)
Love to see both them and Yelp taken down under the RICO act.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they will find that Grubhub is being malicious, or that Grubhub refused to work with restaurants on a more structured basis.
Which is basically blackmail - work with us or we'll keep intercepting your trade and fuck it up.
They're just parasites. Stick them in the slammer.
Re: (Score:2)
Grubhub sets itself up as an invisible go-between. Effectively they build a fake restaurant around the real one and pretend to BE them. See the comment above about the difficulty in finding the actual restaurant's own website through grubhub's fakes.
One effect of that is that it confuses the customer into blaming the actual restaurant for problems caused by GrubHub.
Re:So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd further narrow it down to that combined with how it's represented to the end customer. It should be ok for grubhub to resell food without the permission of the restaurant. First sale doctrine, after all. But they shouldn't be able to do it in the guise of being a partner rather that a middleman.
If customers are getting confused and blaming restaurants, then I think that would support restaurants' claims that grubhub is violating their trademarks. OTOH if grubhub presents the transaction such that customers understand who is really responsible for what, then no harm done.
I'm totally cool with grubhub being aggressive, just don't cross the line into dishonesty. Isn't that what we all want?
food safety laws don't let First sale doctrine (Score:3)
food safety laws don't let just use the First sale doctrine and just repackage food.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it should be illegal to buy something from a store, turn around, and sell it to someone else? Because that's all Grubhub is doing. There's nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
No. We are saying it should illegal to LIE about your service. They are CLAIMING to be the restauarant, not grubhead and then instead act as an intermediadry.
No one is claiming Grubhub can not run an "order from anywhere and we will try to go there, buy it, and return it to you" business.
We are saying stop lying and claiming to have an agreement with the organization and pretending you are directly sending the order to the restaurant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:2)
Nope, if I get the food I order from it, I'm happy. The rate of problems I've had with them is no worse than the old days of calling the restaurant. So if they can increase my dining options this way, not only do I not care I consider it a benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Grubhub makes mistakes and the restaurant is getting blamed for GrubHubs mistakes.
If Grubhub wasn't screwing up and generating complaints this wouldn't be an issue. they are and they are getting sued.
You are arguing about something that isn't under discussion. Nobody cares about what happens when Grubhub does what they say they are doing. The problem is when they claim to be able to do something they can't do. Like get deliver items that the restaurant hasn't had on the menu in weeks. Th
Re: So it's not about "listing" at all (Score:2)
Nope, but trolling at all. Nobody cares if grub hub has a deal with the restaurant or not. If we get what we paid for, we're happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo!
Re: (Score:3)
But, but, but!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
... were just the yellow pages, but with a driver.
If that were the case you would have entered into a relationship with Grubhub just as you would have with the Yellow Pages. People forget you had to pay to get a listing. Clicking on the Grubhub link would put you directly in touch with the restaurant - not some third party intermediary that has little to no clue as to what's going on.
Hopefully this ends poorly for Grubhub.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean exactly like they said?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he means the parent AC said exactly what bws111 thinks he didn't say:
"If that were the case you would have entered into a relationship with Grubhub just as you would have with the Yellow Pages. People forget you had to pay to get a listing."
Re: (Score:2)
The parent AC CLEARLY said you had to pay to get in the Yellow Pages (you even hilighted it). An0nYm0u5c0wArD said 'you don't know what the Yellow Pages was, you had to pay'. I pointed out that was exactly what the AC said. How do you get that the parent said something other than what I think they said?
Re: (Score:2)
I got mixed-up in who I was replying to, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what the AC said. He started off making a mock 'answer' that GrubHub would give, and then said why it was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have reading problem? Again, that is EXACTLY what he said: Clicking on the Grubhub link would put you directly in touch with the restaurant - not some third party intermediary that has little to no clue as to what's going on.
That is in the 'reponse', where he says IF GrubHub were like the Yellow Pages.
Re: (Score:2)
> exposing that restaurant to complaints if grubhub screws up or is too slow or damages the goods.
Or contaminates the food! Let's not forget why people are ordering delivery in the first place.
Simple trick (Score:2)
Why don't the restaurants include a card that informs the customer about their own on-line ordering, and warns them about unauthorized middlemen and the risks of using such.
Re: (Score:2)
How would the restaurant know when to include such a card (since the Grubhub driver is pretending to be their customer and not telling them the order is for a 3rd party)? Or should they include a card like that in every "to go" order?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Print the disclaimer on the brown paper bags that they use for delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck is that a trollish comment? Slashdot's moderation system is garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't the restaurants include a card that informs the customer about their own on-line ordering, and warns them about unauthorized middlemen and the risks of using such.
What card? Are you suggesting they post these out to everyone in the area? The story says that some places are getting a lot more orders than they used to - more than they can cope with, so a lot of that is people that have never been over the door before.
Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for schools.
One day, I took a call from a parent complaining like mad that their child had missed school because she got the day we reopened for term wrong. She said she'd looked up the dates and that we weren't supposed to be back for another day.
I asked her where that was, so that I could find it and correct it, expecting it to be on the school website.
Nope. It was something along the lines of "school opening times dot com". Some completely unrelated third-party. But obviously they were spamming all the names of all the registered schools in the country into their pages.
So whenever you search for the school name and opening times or term dates, you'll get their page instead.
I wouldn't mind, but their dates weren't even vaguely correct, they obviously just put the same dates for all schools on every page, make the page appear to be something to do with our school (using the name, etc in the text) and take ad revenue and clicks because of it.
I had to tell the parent, firstly, don't just google for that stuff, because there's no guarantee that you'll end up on a reliable site at all. Secondly, we ONLY have control over our domain name and website... use that and ignore anything else. And thirdly, don't shout at us for it being "wrong" on a website that we didn't even know existed, let alone have control of.
We complained to the website in question, they just wanted to sign us up so they could "get the right dates" by us paying them money and giving them information that's already clearly on our website anyway. We demanded they removed all reference to our school name. And it was only because our school name was very unique and not something that you could just claim was for another school, they reluctantly agreed but still keep trying to sell us a page on their website to host the right dates "alongside other schools so parents can find it easily". I told them where to go, and the penalties in law for passing off as another company name (and, yes, we were a registered company and registered charity).
But such places are rife, if you go looking for them. It just so happened this one came above us in Google for whatever the parent had searched for, and they were stupid enough to believe them over the actual school website just a few entries below it.
Mug shot publishing industry (Score:2)
In some states they must take down ones for people found not guilty for free!
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatives (Score:2)
Boycott Grubhub, Doordash, etc. There's plenty of alternatives.
If you don't like using the phone for ordering, some of the point-of-sale companies are helping restaurants put their menu and ordering system online. One of my go-to places is encouraging people to use their Square page (as in the payment processor), since they don't charge the restaurant a 30% fee and the tip actually goes to the restaurant rather than a driver or company. Clover is also doing something similar, as far as I can tell.
There's al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to cook when you might be on vacation and your hotel room doesn't have any kind of a kitchen. Otherwise, yes that's true.
Reminds me of this interesting article... (Score:3)
https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage [substack.com]
This pizzeria owner found that DoorDash had not only tried to take over delivery for his restaurant without permission, but they misrepresented the price of his pizza. The good news: he was actually able to make money off of their greedy stupidity.
Re:Not sure I care... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should only make it clear that GrubHub is responsible for meals ordered through GrubHub, including order accuracy and pricing.
No restaurant has control over Grubhub. The restaurants making the complaint didn't even know that Grubhub was claiming to make deliveries for them. Grubhub is another scumbag company that needs to die.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, there are some courier companies, such as Deliveroo, that make it easy for restaurants to offer a delivery service. I see their vehicles quite frequently. I imagine these services are doing really well these days, with sit-down service in restaurants being restricted due to social distancing. I do not know how the finance works with these delivery companies, but I imagine it is all quite open and fair. Perhaps the restaurant pays for the delivery, and the customer pays the menu price. The restaur
Re: (Score:2)
They will still have apps to make food magically appear (UberEats, SkipTheDishes etc). Only now those apps won't have to compete with an app that has consistently out of date listings and exceptionally poor delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not sure I care about the restaurants "loss of control" at all."
There's no control. The data is publicly accessible and just as I'm allowed to film you all day long, while you're in public, I can use that as I see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not sure I care about the restaurants "loss of control" at all."
There's no control. The data is publicly accessible and just as I'm allowed to film you all day long, while you're in public, I can use that as I see fit.
True. However, you can't pretend you're me, and you can't do business under my name and using my brand. Which is what Grubhub is arguably doing in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
No, a business can't insert itself as an agent for another business, advertising their services, taking orders and dealing with their customers without permission, it's very illegal as grubhub will find out. You are clueless, of course restaurants have the right and get to choose IF they will do delivery at all, if they will do delivery themselves or if they will use other services, just as you have the right to not do business with someone that doesn't partner with grubhub or whomever.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst outcome is restaurants win and get to choose which of the N delivery services they authorize, which isn't good for consumers. Ultimately if GrubHub fucks up too much, I will check out DoorDash or Uber eats or Waitr or god knows what else. If they get the power to lock in one vendor, then I'm stuck with them no matter how shitty.
As a consumer, if you want to eat at restaurant A, you are limited to doing business with restaurant A. If they have their own delivery service, or partner with just one delivery service, that additional restriction doesn't mean much. If you don't like what they offer, taken as a whole, you are not prevented from choosing a different restaurant.
Food delivery has a very low barrier to entry compared to services like delivering water or power, which require a physical connection to each home.
Re: (Score:3)
I could ask my secretary to go buy me X from restaurant A, and give her the money. After I get over the bitching that this is not her job, she can go and act as my agent. There's nothing illegal about this.
GrubHub *may* be in trouble if its viewed that they are misrepresenting their relationship with the restaurant or using certain marketing materials without permission, but there's no way that acting as my buying agent on this is illegal.
The restaurants are concerned that their reputation will be hurt by GrubHub. If you know that GrubHub is acting as your agent, that isn't a problem. GrubHub's advertising makes it seem like GrubHub is acting as the restaurant's agent.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't understand is why the customers are so averse to using an actual list - use Google Maps if you absolutely have to do it on a touchscreen - and personally calling actual restaurant staff, to place the order directly with them. Are there really that many agoraphobic autistics who can't leave the house to pick up food, and also cannot accept an alternate restaurant that delivers? For everyone else, why insert a middleman? When has that ever made anything cheaper or simpler?
Upscale restaurants may
Re: (Score:2)
GrubHub is convenient. Quick listing by cuisine, order history to make reorders quick and easy, only one account for the user to worry about. It's what they count on and, frankly, it works. However, they need to spanked HARD and fined for pretending that non-partners are partners. Bad reviews can kill a business which sucks when the blame should fall squarely on Grubhub for putting up old menus for non-partner restaurants. GrubHub needs to be held accountable.
Re:Not sure I care... (Score:4, Informative)
I had read it before bit forgot until someone commenting here reminded me, Grubhub has sometimes registered domains on behalf of the restaraunts that redirect phone numbers to Grubhub. That means even if someone does as you say, they may still end up on the phone with Grubhub not realizing they aren't getting the actual restaurant.
Re: (Score:3)
The Farm-to-Table eatery was known for a lot of things, but a static menu wasn't one of them at all. The menu was written every week on Sunday by the chef. Mind you, this isn't some super-fancy high-end joint, but it isn't take something random and fry it up. The guy in who owned this place was the former head chef at a popular F
Re: (Score:2)
The problem my wife was having, before she finally lost patience and just told me what to order (grunt. me forage for food. grunt.) was that it wasn't clear that she was doing business with Grubhub. They copy the restaurant's (probably trademarked) graphics, provide screenshots of menus, and in general act like they're the restaurant. That's the scam. When things go wrong (and in our experience things often went wrong, until we learned to deal directly with the restaurants) it's the restaurants that take
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just stop crying into your hankie, call the restaurant, then get off your fat ass and pick up the order. No need for these delivery services. Solved.
That's a point, and is what we do, but the google search order and perfidy on the part of Grubhub makes it difficult for non-geeks to understand whom they're actually dealing with, and who's responsible when things go wrong.
And for some people, there is a genuine need. I know people who are literally afraid to leave their homes due to COVID, no matter how illogical that seems. Wife is one such. Never mind that me bringing food home puts her at the same risk as if she gets it herself. It's a psychologica
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just stop crying into your hankie, call the restaurant, then get off your fat ass and pick up the order. No need for these delivery services. Solved.
Earth to fuckwit...Earth to fuckwit. Some of the restaurants don't do take-away. Some of the orders are from old menus and they don't serve that dish anymore. This and other information is available in the fine article.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you didn't read the article at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you didn't read the article at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Grubhub is not simply a listing or reviews site. It was acting as a middleman, portraying itself to have some business relationship with the restaurants when it actually did not. When customers obtained unsatisfactory service from Grubhub, they directed their anger at the restaurants themselves and left bad reviews for the restaurants.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't they be allowed to say a restaurant exists? That's just free speech. Same thing with reviews.
Nothing wrong with that. Pretending to be the restaurant, or doing business as the restaurant's agent, is where they crossed the line.
I'd be very surprised if Grubhub wins the class action. But I guess stranger things have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
They do more.
One, there are restauraunts with a relationship with grubhub, that maintain their grubhub menus and all that and put a grubhub sticker on the front door. So the expectation is clearly set that for a lot of restauraunts on grubhub, the restauraunts are working on the experience.
So the rest of the restaurants, well, grubhub just started unilaterally making it look like they were on grubhub, complete with menus with prices and delivery. So a small time restaurant that just wants to serve dine-in c
Re: (Score:2)
The feds and California should have descended on GrubHub like a pack of wolves and torn them to pieces in state and federal court for organized fraud, IP violation, etc. I mean the whole idea here is to establish the image of a business partnership where none exists and causes lasting injury to random, honest businesses. I refuse to believe that this is not something which is beyond the reach of existing statutes to crush into the ground with such force it looks like a biblical judgment wakeup call to the startup world in California.
Good point. I think someone would argue that businesses have to complain before action can be taken. Now that businesses have complained, the house of cards may start to come crashing down.
I strongly suspect that the originators of Grubhub and the like already have their profits in offshore accounts, and it's the peons under them that will pay the price. But I guess we'll see.
Re: They shouldn't have to sue (Score:2)
It is true that a firm has to be in control of its trade make but that is a court issue
This is also an issue of the right to resell. This is fundamental. What restraints want is an exclusive distribution right for their food. There hasnâ(TM)t been a resale market for prepared food, but we are to make it illegal we need to think about it, let the courts be the place we debate.
This