Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Privacy

DoorDash Sues NYC Over Customer Data Law (reuters.com) 65

Posted by BeauHD from the legal-clashes dept.
DoorDash sued New York City on Wednesday over a new law requiring food delivery companies to share customer data with restaurants, saying it violates customer privacy and lets restaurants compete unfairly. Reuters reports: It was filed in federal court in Manhattan six days after DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats sued the United States' most populous city over a separate law capping fees that delivery companies charge restaurants. [...] In Wednesday's lawsuit, San Francisco-based DoorDash said New York exhibited "naked animus" by requiring food delivery companies to provide customers' names, phone numbers, email addresses and delivery addresses to restaurants. DoorDash said this would let restaurants "free-ride" on the data in a "shocking and invasive intrusion of consumers' privacy," saying restaurants would not demand the same information from in-person diners. It also said "more vulnerable populations, especially undocumented customers" could be harmed if data were mishandled, and shared with immigration authorities or hate groups.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DoorDash Sues NYC Over Customer Data Law More

DoorDash Sues NYC Over Customer Data Law

Comments Filter:

  • Very Sensible Lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @09:07PM (#61800245)
    I don't buy from DD, not because I disagree with their business model, but if my only options were to go hungry for the night or use DD, I'd just rather go hungry. So I don't financially support them. But keeping their customers' data private is something all corporations should be doing, the opposite of which is happening everywhere when it comes to tracking people, where they go, what they spend money on, and what web sites they visit. Glad DD is taking a stand on this.

    • Re:Very Sensible Lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @09:32PM (#61800273)

      Not sure how your laws work. Not even really sure how my laws work. But I posit this just the same.

      If I order from a restaurant, I'm the customer of the restaurant.

      If I order for a different food service, like a grocery store, I'm the customer of the grocery store.

      When I order from a restaurant through a delivery service, we have two options. I paid the delivery service, so DD is saying that I'm their customer. But I'm ordering food from the restaurant (which I chose), so I'm also the restaurant's customer.

      The problem here is that I didn't order delivery. I ordered food. Food is a special kind of product around here -- it's heavily regulated. You can't just start selling food. You need to have a food-selling licence, and be subject to inspections and such.

      So if DD isn't subject to standard food-safety inspections, then they aren't the ones selling the food. And if they aren't the ones selling the food, then I'm not their customer.

      This becomes much more obvious, to me at least, when you consider the scenario where the food is somehow bad. Let's go with the very standard food-poisoning scenario. Will you, the customer, be suing the restaurant? Would you expect the restaurant to say "sorry, you aren't our customer, go sue the delivery service"?

      We all know that if you try to sue DD for bad food, they'll tell you to go sue the restaurant.

      So, as with all things relationship-y, my question to you is simply this: whom do you want to sue? That's your customer-relationship.

      So which one do you want?

      • Re:Very Sensible Lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:23AM (#61800643)
        I suspect that in the eyes of the law, you are incorrect when you make the following statement:-

        "When I order from a restaurant through a delivery service, we have two options. I paid the delivery service, so DD is saying that I'm their customer. But I'm ordering food from the restaurant (which I chose), so I'm also the restaurant's customer."

        In this scenario, I believe that you are the customer of the delivery service, while the delivery service is the customer of the restaurant. I make this suggestion without full knowledge of the transaction details (because I've never used such a service), but would suggest that you can determine the truth of this in a very simple way. If you see two deductions from your credit card, or if your invoice from the delivery service is broken in to two (a fee to them and a fee to the restaurant) then I would agree that you are a customer of the restaurant. But if you only pay the delivery service, then I suspect that you are only a customer of the delivery service.

        Here's a poor-quality analogy for you... If you go to a Ford dealership and buy an F-150, you are a customer of Ford. You're not a customer of Goodyear, who makes the factory-fit tires the F-150 comes with. If you had an issue with a tire on a new F-150, Goodyear would send you back to the dealer.

        "The problem here is that I didn't order delivery. I ordered food. Food is a special kind of product around here -- it's heavily regulated. You can't just start selling food. You need to have a food-selling licence, and be subject to inspections and such.

        So if DD isn't subject to standard food-safety inspections, then they aren't the ones selling the food. And if they aren't the ones selling the food, then I'm not their customer.        "

        Now, this is much more interesting. If my previous assertion is right - i.e. if you are buying from the delivery company, then the delivery company are selling food. So your observation about food-safety inspections should apply. In this case, I believe you are entirely correct to observe that "if DD isn't subject to standard food-safety inspections, then they aren't the ones selling the food", but I'd just re-express your observation a slightly different way:-

        "Because the delivery service have placed themselves in the supply chain between you and the restaurant and are therefore (re)selling food to you, then they must be subject to standard food-safety inspections." I would suggest that this is a failure of the various Health Departments around the country that are charged with food safety inspections at restaurants. They need to start inspecting the delivery services.

        If you think about this a bit more, you can see other reasons why this should be the case. For example, the delivery agent will be handling both food and cash. A prime scenario for germ transfer. Now, the delivery company is going to argue that all food is placed in sealed packages before it leaves the source restaurant - and that might be an entirely fair claim. But that's the claim that the Health Department needs to be inspecting.

        So by all means let the delivery companies try this on... and let's see NYC counter with a much more detailed inspection regime for all their agents... and see how they like that.

        • I suspect that in the eyes of the law, you are incorrect when you make the following statement:-

          "When I order from a restaurant through a delivery service, we have two options. I paid the delivery service, so DD is saying that I'm their customer. But I'm ordering food from the restaurant (which I chose), so I'm also the restaurant's customer."

          In this scenario, I believe that you are the customer of the delivery service, while the delivery service is the customer of the restaurant..

          When I order from a restaurant I am a customer of the restaurant. I am ordering their food. The delivery agent is irrelevant to me except to the extent that they better deliver my order on time. So the restaurant having my contact details is expected, as is the delivery agent because they can't deliver without them.

          If DD was instead "DD Restaurant" with it's own menu I would be their customer not the customer of these suppliers of raw and/or prepared ingredients that they sell as their own. But that isn

          • Their are two scenarios. In some cases, DD "partners" with the restaurant in which case you are the restaurant's customer and DD is essentially a contractor handling the delivery. But this article is about the other scenarios, where there is no business relationship and so you're ordering from DD who in turn is buying from the restaurant. In this situation any issue with the product would fall on DD to resolve as it would be their responsibility to ensure the food was "fit" when they picked it up and their

            • Their are two scenarios. In some cases, DD "partners" with the restaurant in which case you are the restaurant's customer and DD is essentially a contractor handling the delivery. But this article is about the other scenarios, where there is no business relationship and so you're ordering from DD who in turn is buying from the restaurant. In this situation any issue with the product would fall on DD to resolve as it would be their responsibility to ensure the food was "fit" when they picked it up and their responsibility to handle it properly.

              Have you read the DoorDash terms of service?

              5. Contractors and Merchants Are Independent
              You understand and agree that DoorDash provides a technology platform connecting you with independent food service providers and others that provide the products offered through the Services (“Merchants”), and independent third-party contractors who provide delivery services (“Contractors”). You acknowledge and agree that DoorDash does not itself prepare food or offer delivery services, and has no

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ytene ( 4376651 )
            But if you were a customer of the restaurant, you would be paying the restaurant, directly. You're not. You're paying DoorDash. Ergo, you are a customer of DoorDash. You can dress that up any way you like, but there is no direct financial connection between you and the restaurant..

            Hypothetical scenario for you...

            You're hungry. You use the DoorDash service and order pizza. Some time **way** later, a DoorDash agent turns up with a Chinese take-away meal. What are you going to do? Call the pizza parlour

            • But if you were a customer of the restaurant, you would be paying the restaurant, directly. You're not. You're paying DoorDash. Ergo, you are a customer of DoorDash. You can dress that up any way you like, but there is no direct financial connection between you and the restaurant..

              Hypothetical scenario for you...

              You're hungry. You use the DoorDash service and order pizza. Some time **way** later, a DoorDash agent turns up with a Chinese take-away meal. What are you going to do? Call the pizza parlour and complain? Ask for another pizza? Maybe you'll ask for your money back? Who are you going to ask for the refund? The pizza parlour? See how this model comes undone when you start looking at edge cases?

              DoorDash can point to their "terms of service" until they are blue in the face. I suspect it won't help them in court. Oh, they'll try and argue that you accepted their terms of service. Your lawyer is going to counter with the suggestion that they are trying to push an unconscionable contract [upcounsel.com] on you. And you know what? I think you'd have a mighty strong case on your hands.

              Their terms of service are quite explicit. They don't make food, don't ever take possession of your food, and don't deliver food. They only facilitate transactions for a fee, and their refund policy says:

              "(b) No Refunds. Charges paid by you for completed and delivered orders are final and non-refundable. DoorDash has no obligation to provide refunds or credits, but may grant them, in each case in DoorDash’s sole discretion. "

              So far it has held up pretty well.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ytene ( 4376651 )
                Terms of service are not the law.

                Saying that their terms of service have held up pretty well may be entirely accurate and completely meaningless if they have not been tested in court.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cederic ( 9623 )

          In this scenario, I believe that you are the customer of the delivery service, while the delivery service is the customer of the restaurant.

          I think technically you're correct. Door Dash position themselves as a storefront and not an agent facilitating your purchase from a restaurant.

          That alone is a good reason not to use them. I want the restaurant to enjoy my custom and loyalty; delivery is a commodity capability I can easily replace.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ytene ( 4376651 )
            What's really interesting, though, is the extract posted by magzteel, above, on the DoorDash terms of service.

            I wonder how a case would go if someone were to challenge the DoorDash terms of service by arguing that they are basically a blatant attempt to perform an end-run around basic Consumer Protection law? It seems like they want a pretty big slice of the pie when it comes to collecting fees, but accept zero liability if anything goes wrong.

            What's that old saying? Oh yes: if something looks too goo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GlennC ( 96879 )

        My take on this is slightly different. I posit that if you use DD to order food from a restaurant, you're a customer of both DD and the restaurant.

        Because you specified the restaurant, you're a customer of the restaurant, and you're a customer of DD's delivery service since you're likely using their app.

        The restaurant is subject to standard food-safety inspections, and DD is subject to whatever regulations govern delivery services.

        Both are subject to applicable data-privacy laws.

        I am not a lawyer, so it ma

        • My take on this is slightly different. I posit that if you use DD to order food from a restaurant, you're a customer of both DD and the restaurant.

          Because you specified the restaurant, you're a customer of the restaurant, and you're a customer of DD's delivery service since you're likely using their app.

          The restaurant is subject to standard food-safety inspections, and DD is subject to whatever regulations govern delivery services.

          Both are subject to applicable data-privacy laws.

          I am not a lawyer, so it may be even more convoluted than this, especially if the restaurant's web presence has an interface to DD.

          You are close. You are actually a customer of
          - The merchant who provides the food
          - The contract delivering person
          - The Doordash technology platform, which connects the merchant and the contract delivery person

          It is all spelled out in the terms of service:

          5. Contractors and Merchants Are Independent
          You understand and agree that DoorDash provides a technology platform connecting you with independent food service providers and others that provide the products offered through the Services (“Merchants

        • and DD is subject to whatever regulations govern delivery services.

          Well, DD would likely argue that being subject to regulations is contrary to their valuable business model! How dare a local government place restrictions on such a novel and entrepreneurial startup that pays its workers less than the restaurants pay their own delivery people!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        When I order from a restaurant through a delivery service, we have two options. I paid the delivery service, so DD is saying that I'm their customer. But I'm ordering food from the restaurant (which I chose), so I'm also the restaurant's customer.

        No, you are not the restaurant's customer. You paid the delivery service and you're their customer. See further below on why.

        The problem here is that I didn't order delivery. I ordered food. Food is a special kind of product around here -- it's heavily regulated. You can't just start selling food. You need to have a food-selling license, and be subject to inspections and such.

        There's a difference between making food, handling food, and handling packaged food. If DD was bringing you plates in the open, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Either way, if DD wasn't compliant with licensing laws and food-handling protocols, NY would be going after them on that, which is a much easier target if you want to disrupt their business model.

        So if DD isn't subject to standard food-safety inspections, then they aren't the ones selling the food. And if they aren't the ones selling the food, then I'm not their customer.

        I'd argue that

        • Now, re-read everything that you just wrote, and answer this question independently from all of the others:

          How would you like your society to work?

          It's very easy to find logical solutions to logic problems. Everyone suing everyone in a chain works very well for its intended purpose. But the system's "intended purpose" isn't to make life better -- it's to stop wars. Courtrooms don't aim for justice for the two parties. They aim for justice for the rest of society -- to isolate and contain the warring par

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lsllll ( 830002 )

            You had me at "How would you like your society to work?".

            I believe the way most things work in the U.S. is despicable, and it's all a part of a "circle of life" thing, meaning they're all interconnected. Because everything is connected and systems feed each other, there's no way to get out the rut we're in, short of a reboot, which won't happen because there are many security layers leading to the reboot button. I would not want the society to work in the manner it does and am near the point of moving out

            • I feel for you. I like to think that I'm in a country where I can easily ignore the news. There are the occasional days when that's tough, but at least before covid that they were few and far between.

              Certainly more snow than sand -- which I actually credit for some of that bliss. I imagine a serial killer waking up one morning, stretching, sipping coffee, grabbing the weapon of choice, lacing up boots, putting on a winter coat, a hat, gloves, stepping outside, willing to kill someone, but not willing the

          • Courtrooms do try to give justice to the people in the courtroom.

            I'm sorry you don't understand that.

            • You're absolutely right. Courtrooms give justice to the judge, the bailiff, and to everyone in the viewing gallery.

        • also, you mentioned packaged food, as though the delivery service isn't responsible for the food-safety because it is packaged.

          well, my friend, doesn't that mean that you, the customer, are dependent on the food packaging itself? And since the delivery service didn't package the food, the restaurant did, then the delivery itself is dependent on the restaurant -- making the delivery service, in-part, the restaurant's domain. Making you a customer of the restaurant.

          we're talking about food here. So if your

      • There's more than just suing over food poisoning, etc. What hurts the restaurants is the perception of their food. You buy an expensive meal and it shows up at your door cold. Or the nice preparation is all jumbled because the driver hit a pothole while driver over the speed limit to get to your door on time (or be fired). Now the food has lost value, the customer is mad, and also the customer is a typical stupid internet user and goes to Yelp or other harrasment service (aka, reviews) and bitches that

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
        Because the situation of ${Customer} gets ${Product} manufactured by ${CompanyX}, but delivered by ${CompanyY}, has never happened before the advent of DoorDash.

    • DD already sells your data (Score:5, Informative)

      by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @10:17PM (#61800331)

      But keeping their customers' data private is something all corporations should be doing, the opposite of which is happening everywhere when it comes to tracking people, where they go, what they spend money on, and what web sites they visit. Glad DD is taking a stand on this.

      DoorDash already sells your info to marketing firms. Once you order from them, you get a ton of ads and mailers. They're not protecting your data from spammers. They're just upset that NYC is forcing them to give it away for free to the business you're actually doing business with. They have no problem selling as much details about you as they can to those who pay the right price.

      May I suggest that if you don't trust the local restaurant with your name and address, maybe you shouldn't trust their cooking as well? :) After all, it's something you are literally going to put in your body and has a high chance of making you sick if mishandled.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is only sensible in the sense they are doing it to protect their business model. They don't care about customer privacy as they already sell/share the data with 3rd parties.

    • Door Dash is expensive.

    • But keeping their customers' data private is something all corporations should be doing

      Define "private". Is Doordash keeping your data private by not giving it to a restaurant? Why not ask Doordash about it:

      4. Sharing of Personal Information with Third Parties
      We share your Personal Information as described below.
      a. Service Providers
      b. Dashers and Merchants
      c. Related Entities
      d. When Required by Law
      e. Corporate Transactions
      f. With Your Consent

      Yep, bastions of privacy those Doordash people. But at least the restaurant doesn't get your details... which in and of itself is moronic.

    • I don't buy from DD, not because I disagree with their business model, but if my only options were to go hungry for the night or use DD, I'd just rather go hungry. So I don't financially support them. But keeping their customers' data private is something all corporations should be doing, the opposite of which is happening everywhere when it comes to tracking people, where they go, what they spend money on, and what web sites they visit. Glad DD is taking a stand on this.

      I don't order from them either, but I look at it this way: I am a customer of the restaurant, not DD. I bought food from the restaurant and DD is the delivery agent. In similar such transactions the restaurant certainly has their customer details. What DD is doing is positioning themselves as a "virtual restaurant" but I'm not ordering DD food any more than I would be ordering FedEx food if FedEx was the delivery agent.

      • No, with FedEx I am working directly with the original seller, but asking the seller to use FedEx as their delivery agent. My money does not go to FedEx directly, it goes to whoever I bought the box of upscale designer diaper pins from (which absolutely have to be here overnight). But with DoorDash you order directly from DoorDash, not the restaurant. Now in some cases restaurants will voluntarily partner with a gig-exploiting company as their deliver server, and you can order from a restaurant and they

        • No, with FedEx I am working directly with the original seller, but asking the seller to use FedEx as their delivery agent. My money does not go to FedEx directly, it goes to whoever I bought the box of upscale designer diaper pins from (which absolutely have to be here overnight). But with DoorDash you order directly from DoorDash, not the restaurant. Now in some cases restaurants will voluntarily partner with a gig-exploiting company as their deliver server, and you can order from a restaurant and they will use DoorDash or Uber Eats or whoever to deliver it, but I think this is more in the minority of cases.

          The DoorDash terms of service explicitly say you are not ordering from DoorDash. They only transmit the order to the "merchant". DoorDash also does not deliver anything, the "Contractor" does. They explicitly are not responsible for anything at all, not the food, not the delivery, nothing. It's quite a racket.

          5. Contractors and Merchants Are Independent
          You understand and agree that DoorDash provides a technology platform connecting you with independent food service providers and others that provide the

    • I don't buy their arguments around undocumented customers. For nearly any business that will stay open for more than a year, they have learned to put their politics aside in terms of who can be a customer. A Gay person would be welcomed to be a customer at Chick-Fil-A. An Atheist can shop at Hobby-Lobby. The New York Times will sell to a Conservative Reader. Google will allow the Religious right and even give them related search results.

      If a restaurant as a business is going to be so hateful, that they wi

  • and this (Score:5, Informative)

    by renegade600 ( 204461 ) on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @09:32PM (#61800277)

    and this from a company that hijacks customers through their fake restaurant websites and phone numbers.

  • Naked animus? Sounds sexy.

  • Bullshit argument - DD driver is greater threat (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @10:07PM (#61800315)
    Doordash isn't protecting the customer, just their predatory business model of taking 25% of your sale. You want me to believe a customer trusts a business with food ingested in their body, but wants to hide their name and address from the owner? I call bullshit. Sorry, I don't care if my mom & pop pizzeria gets my info and mails me coupons. You say you're valuing my privacy, I trust my local pizzeria owner much more than your desperate, underpaid, work-when-they-feel-like-it contractors. The local business owner has something to lose and can be sued if he/she did something illegal with my data. I don't think you can say the same of gig economy workers.

    Also, DoorDash, fuck off with the stupid comment that they'd send your data to hate groups or immigration authorities. No one is going to fucking notify the KKK if you have a black, Jewish, Muslim, or Latino name. No one does that. Even slashdot trolls wouldn't come up with an accusation that stupid.

    Is a business entitled to my name and address when I order from them? I don't know. I personally don't care. That's how it was before door dash and everything was fine. You'd call, give your name and address and an hour later, someone would trade you money for food. No one called immigration authorities or the KKK/Oath-Keepers/Hamas/Proud-boys on me. I don't have an opinion on the actual case, but DD's argument is offensively stupid.

    Just be honest about the facts. DoorDash is a harmful business to their employees and the restaurants they take deliveries from and add close to no value. They markup the order by 25%, but take no responsibility for getting it right, providing a correct menu nor keeping it up to date, delivering your order on time, or delivering it in tact. If you find them convenient, order from them, but just be aware of how little value they add.

    I find them parasitic and of no value, so I just call my local pizzeria, tip well, and pay in cash. Why? I give a fuck about my local community businesses and want them to stay, despite rent pressure from gentrification, COVID, and dot-com middlemen. I want to involve as few parasites between me and my food and that includes DD and banks getting their cut from my CC transaction. As an added bonus, my order ALWAYS gets to my door faster than when my wife orders from them, often by nearly an hour.

    If door dash actually provided real value, they wouldn't fear competition from local businesses.

  • Free ride you say? (Score:5, Informative)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @05:33AM (#61800745)

    DoorDash said this would let restaurants "free-ride" on the data

    Isn't DoorDash the same company which was illegally signing up restaurants and delivering the food without telling the restaurant [slashdot.org]? The same company which admitted to the SEC it can't survive without taking advantage of both customers and workers [slashdot.org]?

    Why yes, yes it is. Kettle, meet pot.

  • You can't let the masses profit off of consumer data! Only SillyCon Valley's allowed to do that!

    Funny how its only when their slice of the pie is threatened that the sociopaths suddenly care about consumer privacy.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close