Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google The Courts Businesses

Google Dupes Diners, Sidelines Restaurants For Delivery Profits (reuters.com) 49

Posted by BeauHD from the deceptive-webpages dept.
Google has been making unauthorized pages for restaurants and using them to take a cut of fees from delivery orders through sites like Postmates, DoorDash and Grubhub, according to a lawsuit Tuesday in San Francisco federal court. Reuters reports: The proposed class action (PDF) filed by Left Field Holdings, a Florida franchisee of Lime Fresh Mexican restaurants, said Google has been creating illegitimate digital "storefronts" for restaurants and deceiving users into thinking that the restaurants approved them. The lawsuit says Google takes a cut from the delivery sites for orders made through the storefronts, and in some cases delivery sites pay Google to divert users to them.

Left Field said restaurants are charged up to 30% of each order in fees by delivery sites, and therefore see "little (if any)" profits from them. Google never received permission to sell the restaurants' food, designed the storefronts to look like they were restaurant-appproved, and placed a large "Order Online" button under restaurant search results to lure users to its storefronts, according to Left Field. [...] The lawsuit accuses Google of deceiving customers and violating federal trademark law starting in 2019. It asks for an undisclosed amount of money damages on behalf of Left Field and similarly affected restaurant owners and a ban on Google's alleged misuse of their trade names. In response to the lawsuit, a Google spokesperson said that the "Order Online" feature is meant to "connect customers with restaurants they want to order food from," and that it lets restaurants "indicate whether they support online orders or prefer a specific provider, including their own ordering website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Dupes Diners, Sidelines Restaurants For Delivery Profits More

Google Dupes Diners, Sidelines Restaurants For Delivery Profits

Comments Filter:

  • They're going at it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday March 10, 2022 @07:56PM (#62345957)
    sue for copyright and trademark infringement. Make it about property. The way those laws are written whoever's name is on the paperwork wins, and they win big.

    • Your mean block Google from using their name in one specific part of their service? I assume they would expect to still be ranked the same in search results and appear when prior search for restaurants in a specific area? They just don't want to show up when people search for restaurants that deliver in a specific area?

      These restaurants have contacts with the delivery companies.
      Google is simply sending people who click through to these delivery companies.

  • Clear case of Trademark infringement times many thousands. Should be interesting.

    • Clear case of Trademark infringement

      Not so clear. You can use the trademark "Coca Cola" if you are actually referring to Coca Cola. The legal standard is not whether the trademark holder objects to your use but whether it results in consumer confusion. If your shop sells Coca Cola, you don't need Coke's permission to say, "We sell Coca Cola."

      In this case, Google is using the restaurant's name to refer to the actual restaurant. Whether that is an illegal infringement is not obvious.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TonyJohn ( 69266 )
        Wouldn't it depend on whether the product being referred to is the restaurant's food, or the restaurant's food and delivery service. The food is the same thing (c.f. Coca Cola) but the delivery service is not being provided by the restaurant so it would be misleading to refer to it by the restaurant's name.

      • And if I'm showing the Super Bowl at my bar I can announce that too, right?

        • And if I'm showing the Super Bowl at my bar I can announce that too, right?

          Yes, you can. It is not trademark infringement to refer to the actual Super Bowl as the Super Bowl.

          Of course, if you don't have a public performance license, they may sue you for copyright infringement, but that is a different issue.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Not so clear. You can use the trademark "Coca Cola" if you are actually referring to Coca Cola. The legal standard is not whether the trademark holder objects to your use but whether it results in consumer confusion. If your shop sells Coca Cola, you don't need Coke's permission to say, "We sell Coca Cola."

        In this case, Google is using the restaurant's name to refer to the actual restaurant. Whether that is an illegal infringement is not obvious.

        Using Coca Cola in your name because you sell it is called "no

  • Crimes that require intent are clear about it.

    In addition, in cases where there was an honest mistake and you did not mean to commit a crime, you are required to prove that intent by refunding the money.

    Otherwise all you are doing is whining about how you committed a crime by mistake and therefore should get to keep the thing you stole.

  • restaurants are charged?? they can't up the price for door dash and others? and don't door dash and others have higher menu prices anyways vs the place it self?

    • Restaurants have the choice to set the DoorDash price, all the while, DoorDash takes like 23%. In my city, they ruled to cap it at 15%, but then DoorDash went and added $1.50 regulatory response fee, paid by the customer.
  • Lemme get this straight- Google directed customers to a fake storefront, took and order as a middleman with their 30% cut, passed along the order, and somehow forced the restaurant to accept the order at 70% of their asking price? "Sorry Google you didn't pay asking so you dont get the order" seems like the right response.

    • or do people show up to pickup with an order sheet and not to get into an bad review / angry customer at the door they take it?
      Does door dash / others hide stuff in there 1000 page EULA?

    • Google doesn't take orders, they show an Order Online button in search results that goes to a site like DoorDash. These restaurants want the users to come to their own site instead, to avoid the delivery service cut - which they can already configure themselves [google.com]. Or they can turn off the Order Online button completely, if they prefer.

      • But, per the complaint, the restaurants never had any interaction with Google, the button just appears in the results. So how could they possibly log in and turn off the Order Online button "if they prefer"?

        More to the point, why would the burden be on the restaurant to fix a problem created by the scummy actions of the company that's taking advantage of them?

        "C. Scenario 1: Google’s Online Storefront.
        63.
        The first webpage, referred to herein as “Google’s Online Storefront”

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )
          I really don't like the opt-out model. I much prefer double opt-in.

          • That was the basic default in the old days, and privacy was a lynchpin of American life.

            But easy capital and arrogance has warped Silicon Valley into an anti-privacy hellhole over the last generation or two. What was once an amazing place of invention has disappeared, and turned a healthy chunk of the average Joe's 401-K into a minefield of trivial advertising companies.

        • the scummy actions of the company that's taking advantage of them

          Are you talking about Google, or DoorDash? Because Google doesn't get a cut here. The complainants want to call it a "virtual storefront", but everyone else would call it "search listings", where some links to related sites are in the form of a button.

          What Google gets is more eyeballs for its ads, and it gets those eyeballs because consumers actually like these little services. It's clear that order buttons lower friction because consumers are pressing them. So it's a small win for consumers, a bigger win f

    • Isn't this essentially a man-in-the-middle attack, i.e. intercepting, modifying & redirecting users' requests? It totally sounds like they're scamming restaurants to me. Plus, when the order arrives at the doorstep luke warm/cold & battered, the restaurant, not the delivery service, gets the complaints & bad reviews & there's nothing they can do about it. Yep, sounds like the usual Silicon Valley 'disruptive' fuckery to me. If they were kids at school, they'd be excluded from class & sen

      • not all restaurants have websites / dns stuff so how do they verify there place? without say being forced to buy gsuit just to get control?
        and what if some service set up an Business Profile for them with out any consent? can they get an court to force google to give them control of it?

    • No.
      Google set up a "fake store front" and directed customers to the delivery service that already has agreements with the restaurant.
      By "fake store front" I think they mean search result.
      The restaurant is complaining that Google send people to delivery services have have unprofitable contacts with instead of directly to them.

  • It wasn't that long ago that Google's motto was "don't be evil".

    That vanished from their lexicon, if I remember correctly, about five years ago.

  • Is there some law that forces restaurants to accept every order that comes through Google?

    I would have thought that not offering discounted orders / asking for "full retail" would pretty much kill Google's little side business dead. Or even only accepting orders from businesses and individuals that have expressly signed up for the "feature".

    • I run a busy brewpub in a small town This is really just annoying. We get 5-10 calls a day from google. We didnâ(TM)t ask google to add an âoeorder onlineâ button to our business page. I have to ask into the void to simply turn it off. If someone clicks âoeorder onlineâ google hands off to some third party that actually calls my land line because I havenâ(TM)t set up an âoeonline ordering partnerâ Now my staff has to explain to some Karen that we donâ(TM)t do
      • Will you have your lawyer write a friendly letter to their nice lawyer? That might get the point across without having to sue.

      • There's this little hole in the wall restaurant nearby, Japanese food place really good. They do the same thing - I live about 10 mins away and I try to order over the phone, and I can rarely get through because they are too busy.

        Now, I don't know how to explain that this is horrible business from their perspective. Take-out means I'm giving them money to only take up kitchen time. I don't take up their space or time in the restaurant. So they are losing business (and it's a small place, seats maybe 10 at t

        • You said it yourself: they are a "little hole in the wall restaurant". Likely, their staff is already maxed out during lunch and dinner rushes. Running a parallel channel for phone orders would make their lives harder, not easier.

          Not every place wants to expand, because that comes with risks. Likely, they are happy how they are. If you want their food, and want to order over the phone, call at off-peak times.

        • In other parts of the world people go to restaurants to eat with friends &/or family & enjoy each others' company. If the service is slow, who cares? Also, the staff don't harass you with pushy upselling sales monologues & if they're in a bad mood, they don't put on a fake 'happy face' & pretend they're feeling wonderful. Oh, they get paid a reasonable living wage & don't depend on tips either. That way you can have more sincere conversations with them - you might get along, you might no

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jsonn ( 792303 )
          In many parts of the world, the food is not where the restaurant makes it money, it's the drinks. Take-out essentially removes that and therefore can effectively destroy a business.

  • . . .of the "Don't be Evil" sign at Google Headquarters.

  • and placed a large "Order Online" button under restaurant search results to lure users to its storefronts,

    When I went to Google Maps and selected a nearby local restaurant, the big 'Order Online' button took me to a page where I could select from several third party delivery service (Uber Eats, Door Dash, etc.). It was VERY clear to me that I was not ordering directly from the restaurant, and I backed out of that page and called the restaurant directly to place an order. I;m not sure what their complaint is.

    • Re:I'm not seeing what they are seeing (Score:4, Informative)

      by theskipper ( 461997 ) on Friday March 11, 2022 @01:44AM (#62346683)

      The complaint is that the fees are substantially higher when the order passes through Google's button since the restaurant has a discounted agreement with the delivery services built into their ordering system. So if you ordered directly from the restaurant and used Doordash, it's much cheaper for them. If the restaurant claimed their business on Google or somesuch and clicked the enable Order Online button, then that would be fair game. But there wasn't any consent or permission given to Google to insert themselves into the ordering process so that's the issue.

      From Section IV, A in the complaint:
      36.
      Plaintiffs, like many class members, maintain a branded order-taking website at
      www.limefresh.com, where consumers can place delivery and take-out orders directly with Lime Fresh
      restaurants. All orders placed by consumers on the Lime Fresh website are routed to the specific Lime
      Fresh restaurant selected by the consumer upon check-out, and all revenues received for each order
      flow to the designated restaurant. For take-out orders, the customer picks-up the order directly from the
      restaurant, and the ordering process is costless to the restaurant. For orders requiring delivery, Plaintiffs
      entered into an agreement with a delivery service (DoorDash) on a fixed-fee basis at a fraction of the
      net-cost of the typical fee charged by Delivery Providers for the same order.

      For each delivery order from Lime Fresh’s website, Plaintiffs pay their designated delivery
      service (i.e. DoorDash) a net fee of approximately $2 per order, versus $4-6 per order as charged by the
      typical Delivery Provider (20-30% of a typical $20.00 order is $4-6 per delivery order). For each take-
      out order, no fee is charged to Plaintiffs from the Lime Fresh’s website; versus a fee of $1.20-4 for
      similar orders processed by the typical Delivery Providers (6-20% fee of a typical $20.00 order is $1.20-
      4 per take-out order).

  • "Google has been making unauthorized pages for restaurants"

    Like a phone-book, Yelp, Tripadvisor and other for 30 years now?
    There's no law prohibiting this.

  • I remember booking a table in a restaurant through some service and rang the restaurant asking where my reservation confirmation was. The restaurant said they don't even accept reservations and I was probably booking through some system had simply scraped their details up and presented it as if it was the official booking site. I didn't realise this was a thing but apparently it is.

    I wonder how easy it would be to poison sites with trap restaurants that look like real restaurants complete with menu, phone

    • In your example, it sounds like some service sold you a reservation booking that they didn't have available to sell. Why involve IP law when already have them dead-to-rights on plain, old-fashioned fraud?

      Suppose I offer to drive to Walmart and pick up a widget for you in exchange for a fee. We agree and then I take your money, but then I never bother to go to Walmart and I never show up with your widget. I merely defrauded you, taking your money in exchange for something I never delivered (indeed, I can't

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        I assume it was some predatory business that scraped up the menu & contact details, posed as a reservation service and then emailed the restaurant to confirm the booking. In my case the restaurant just ignored the email because it was BS. If the restaurant had accepted my booking no doubt they'd have been charged a fee somewhere along the line.

        I can see how restaurants feel the pressure to accept this bullshit and presumably they do on the basis that some profit is better than none. Many of them have

  • Left Field said restaurants are charged up to 30% of each order in fees by delivery sites, and therefore see "little (if any)" profits from them.

    This never made any sense to me.

    Suppose you were a restaurant and a delivery company said "we'll buy meals from you and resell them (with added delivery) buy we'll pay you 30% less than usual. Do we have a deal?"

    You reply, "Well, my margin is less than 30% [as the summary implies], so it sounds like that's going to make me lose money. I must say no to your offer.

    • I think this guy's just trying to make Google look like a bad guy here. Far as I know, Google doesn't have a food delivery service, so they're not taking a cut. There might be a default service that that service is paying for.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close