Lawsuit Alleges DoorDash Charges iPhone Users More Than Android (sfgate.com) 127
SFGate reports:
A proposed class-action lawsuit levels broad allegations that DoorDash, the San Francisco-headquartered food delivery giant, is engaging in fraudulent behavior — in part by charging iPhone users more than Android havers.
The complaint, a hefty 134-page airing of grievances about the fees and upsells faced while ordering on the app, filed by Maryland resident Ross Hecox and his children, contends that DoorDash conducts "price discrimination" by allegedly charging iPhone users an "expanded range fee" more often than their Android counterparts.
According to the suit, posted by Gizmodo, the fee — a markup to any deliveries outside of the user's immediate radius set by DoorDash — is arbitrarily applied without actually taking into account users' locations. At least seven tests with separate iPhone and Android devices were conducted by the plaintiffs to prove this point in the suit.
In one set of tests, an Android phone and an iPhone were used to place the same order — a breakfast sandwich with avocado and egg whites and a chocolate chip bagel from a nearby Panera Bread — to the same address simultaneously. In the first order, according to the suit, the iPhone was at the delivery location and the Android was 15 miles away; the iPhone user received the expanded range fee. In the second, the phones' locations were reversed, with the iPhone being used 15 miles away from the delivery site; the iPhone user, the suit alleges, was still charged the fee. In a third test involving Panera, the phones were both at the delivery location — the iPhone not only allegedly received the expanded range fee but was charged an additional dollar in delivery fees. Other tests allege that delivery fees on iPhone orders are "greatly" inflated.
DoorDash called the complaints "baseless and simply without merit," in a statement to Gizmodo.
The complaint, a hefty 134-page airing of grievances about the fees and upsells faced while ordering on the app, filed by Maryland resident Ross Hecox and his children, contends that DoorDash conducts "price discrimination" by allegedly charging iPhone users an "expanded range fee" more often than their Android counterparts.
According to the suit, posted by Gizmodo, the fee — a markup to any deliveries outside of the user's immediate radius set by DoorDash — is arbitrarily applied without actually taking into account users' locations. At least seven tests with separate iPhone and Android devices were conducted by the plaintiffs to prove this point in the suit.
In one set of tests, an Android phone and an iPhone were used to place the same order — a breakfast sandwich with avocado and egg whites and a chocolate chip bagel from a nearby Panera Bread — to the same address simultaneously. In the first order, according to the suit, the iPhone was at the delivery location and the Android was 15 miles away; the iPhone user received the expanded range fee. In the second, the phones' locations were reversed, with the iPhone being used 15 miles away from the delivery site; the iPhone user, the suit alleges, was still charged the fee. In a third test involving Panera, the phones were both at the delivery location — the iPhone not only allegedly received the expanded range fee but was charged an additional dollar in delivery fees. Other tests allege that delivery fees on iPhone orders are "greatly" inflated.
DoorDash called the complaints "baseless and simply without merit," in a statement to Gizmodo.
Torn (Score:1)
Iâ(TM)m torn. Normally, I hate lawsuits like this. Likely itâ(TM)s an issue between the development of the native apps.
On the other hand. I really hate Door Dash, this gig economy model, and I want it to fail like the turd it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The app itself shouldn't matter. The app shouldn't be making decisions on cost. That should all be handled server-side via some sort of an API request.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the way Apple works.
Re: Torn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Different fees for different zip codes may not be unscrupulous either. There may be actual tangible costs for the vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
Will that mean those with premium current year models of Android phones can also be charged more compared to someone ordering from a 2 year old phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The server is making the decision, but it knows which app is asking and is pricing accordingly. Variable pricing is a practice as old as time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the apps for both platforms are probably owned/managed by completely legally separate entities, each charging a different pass-through cost on top of their partner doordash base cost.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the apps for both platforms are probably owned/managed by completely legally separate entities
We're talking about Doordash, not Doorhash or whatever service you used to order some weed you smoked before making that post. It's a single company. Seriously if you're going to make shit up just make up something that benefits humanity rather than simply looking like a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
The app itself shouldn't matter. The app shouldn't be making decisions on cost. That should all be handled server-side via some sort of an API request.
Should be, but a default tip rate hardcoded at some level by programmer whim would not be surprising at all.
Seriously, two apps, two different default setting (Score:2)
Likely itâ(TM)s an issue between the development of the native apps.
I'm expecting something as simple as two different app each with a different default setting hardcoded in. The default probably a programmer whim.
Now if there is some actually attempt to leverage the greater ability to pay of Apple users, I hope it is accompanied with a tangible benefit like a higher delivery priority.
Or, it's just a variation on the old wealthier zip codes get charged more. Apple users correlating with the wealthier neighborhoods, correlation not causation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd summarised your post in two short paragraphs, someone might actually have read it.
If they had shortened it to fit the average attention span, they would have had to make it cartoonishly uninformative. Fuck off with your short attention span. If you can't pay attention, you don't need the information and you don't need to comment.
FYI, you missed out on a decent read. They were examining gig-work and possible reasons for it and against it. Your opinion on the subject no longer matters as you failed to deem the information presented as important.
Duh... Is anybody surprised by this? (Score:1)
iPhone users have been paying more for everything for years.
They are true believers and believe it's "worth it".
Re: (Score:2)
iPhone users have been paying more for everything for years. They are true believers and believe it's "worth it".
They (companies) figure the sheeple will not notice because they've bought into the whole "Apple is pristine at regulating the apps on the store from scams" and not even think if they're getting screwed over.
Re: (Score:2)
iPhone users have been paying more for everything for years. They are true believers and believe it's "worth it".
Same. I thought they would insisted on paying more than Android users, so I'm surprised by the lawsuit. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
A fool and their money shall soon be parted. If there's ever a group of people this universally applies to, it's Apple customers.
Disclosure: I used to work in Apple Customer Care and Direct Dispatch. I saw how much Apple overcharged for their parts.
And that's illegal because? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. It's no different than paying more if you live in a certain area of town.
Correlation not causation (Score:2)
Yep. It's no different than paying more if you live in a certain area of town.
Which is probably what is really happening. Its zip code based, and Apple correlates with wealthier zip codes.
:-)
Or the iOS dev hardcoded a higher default tip rate than the Android dev hardcoded.
Re: (Score:2)
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit tested for that and found that iPhones get charged and expanded range fee when android users are not.
It seems that the prices are the same, but the junk fees are more for the iPhone users. (at least if the lawsuit is correct in the facts claimed)
being as I have both, if I ever decide to use door dash, I'll try and remember to check both and see which gets me a better price
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try and remember to check both and see which gets me a better price
Knowledge is power.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try and remember to check both and see which gets me a better price
Knowledge is power.
In this case knowledge will require some packet sniffing to determine the location info being sent. Also system settings on the devices, both GPS, both location via IP address, do they use the same service for location via IP? This knowledge thing can be tricky.
Re: Correlation not causation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case I can just log in with both phones at the same time and go with the lowest price
This won't check the lawsuit claim that you mentioned, you don't know if both phones are reporting precisely the same location. The reported location could be the source of the price difference, not platform.
Re: Correlation not causation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both phones will have the same delivery address and the same order. I'll choose the one with the lowest price. What is so hard about that to understand? I don't need to know exactly why one app has a lower price than the other.
You raised that question: "(at least if the lawsuit is correct in the facts claimed)". I am pointing out the complications of your question.
Also, we don't know if the delivery address is used for positional information with respect to pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
being as I have both, if I ever decide to use door dash, I'll try and remember to check both and see which gets me a better price
Keep in mind that they may return different location info. You will have to do some packet sniffing to get the locations sent.
Even the same device can send different location info depending on whether it is using GPS or IP addressed based positioning.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're claiming the fee is for some specific reason, and then it turns out not to be for that reason, it's fraud (specifically "false pretenses".) If they just called it a special handling fee and it turned out to be because iPhone users make more complaints that cost money to process, or it costs more to maintain the iPhone app, there would be a reason for the special treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
It might be slimy but it's not fraud nor illegal. If they charge a fee based on distance but only charge it when they want to, that's not fraud or a lie. If the amount of the fee changes due to arbitrary reasons it's not fraud either.
Car salespeople charge whatever they can get away with. As long as the pricing is not based on a lie or directly correlate with protected classes, you can negotiate rates in a completely inconsistent ad hoc way whenever you want
Re: (Score:1)
"Using an iPhone isn't a protected class."
Doesn't have to be. Is murdering an iPhone user not illegal because "using an iPhone isn't a protected class"?
Re: (Score:3)
"Using an iPhone isn't a protected class."
Doesn't have to be. Is murdering an iPhone user not illegal because "using an iPhone isn't a protected class"?
Well considering that murder is illegal, that is a pretty asinine example. But if you want to go that route, you wouldn't be charged with a hate crime on top of it because iPhone users aren't a protected class.
Re: (Score:2)
Handicapped is a protected class. Mental retardation is a handicap.
Re: And that's illegal because? (Score:2)
So, this is to help Android device users, then? Lol
Re: (Score:2)
If the price difference is not clearly (or at all) communicated, together with the reason for it, it's illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
None of your examples are based on what you use (or wear, for that matter).
It's like a restaurant charging you more because you wear a certain brand of shoes, meaning you can pay afford more than the next guy. This could fall under "classism".
The price of a service could be variable based on objective reasons, and all your examples fall under that category. Using an iPhone to order, versus using an Android phone, is not an objective reason for a price hike.
PC? (Score:3)
What if I ordered in a browser on a PC?
I can remember back in the 90s getting different pricing at certain sites depending on which browser I was using, with IE consistently getting the highest prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you install their special app? It's sooooo much easier and more convenient!
Re: (Score:2)
I like my meals without a side of data rape.
Re: (Score:2)
That's adorable, you think you're not getting dataraped by using the internet on a PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, on the PC I don't have to share my contact list, my pictures, my microphone and camera, exact location, etc. On PC I can easily block ads, scripts, third-party cookies, etc. Yes, my browser gives up a fingerprint and since I use particular things that fingerprint is probably unique to me. Yes, lots of companies employ super-cookies and there isn't much you can do about it. Mobile apps are everything on PC an way more. Why do you think everyone wants to push their own app on you instead of focusing on
Re: (Score:2)
Just your credit card and delivery address. Nothing important. Thankyou for your service citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Different than lots of purchases how? Like Target is better?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's on a PC. Reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
There was also instances where sites like Amazon would charge higher prices depending on whether you were logged in or not, or whether you used a different browser which didn't have your cookies and such.
Such price discrimination is legal. There have been Coke machines that adjust the price of a drink based on the outside temperature as well.
You can sue over it, and depending on the jury, you might win.
The only real action that you should claim is price transparency - if you're going to charge iPhone users
Re: (Score:2)
I can remember back in the 90s getting different pricing at certain sites depending on which browser I was using
"In the *90s*"? It's still happening *today* - Amazon and pretty much every travel and airline site are the well-known ones, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's much more prevalent than even that. (Hell, between incompetence and malice I'm not sure I'd be surprised if it turned out to be more than half of *all* online transactions).
demand pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect this all has something to do with demand pricing, where the fees can be non-deterministic. Ordering from the same restaurant at the same time from different accounts probably triggers the demand pricing code. Things like time of day, day of week, driver availability, and more could all influence the price. The whole thing is designed to be skewed toward DoorDash profits.
Re: (Score:2)
"I suspect this all has something to do with demand pricing, where the fees can be non-deterministic."
Otherwise known as fraud.
"Ordering from the same restaurant at the same time from different accounts probably triggers the demand pricing code."
How is that relevant? And while that is probably necessary, why would you think it sufficient? All that says is demand > 1
"Things like time of day, day of week, driver availability, and more could all influence the price. "
And yet the entire point is that prici
Re: demand pricing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Business dealings can be negotiated on a sale by sale basis. If you're not discriminating based on a protected class or lying about what you're charging for, any pricing they can get away with is fair game. It's why buying a car is such an awful experience.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the entire point is that pricing appears dependent on phone type.
"Appears", as in its really dependent upon zip code and Apple correlates with wealthier zip codes?
Even if it does (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Came here to say this. A few lawyers are about to find out they should have paid more attention in lawschool. Charging different platforms different prices is a practice as old as time, and is also why you should never use internet explorer to book airline tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
A few lawyers are happy to take money to lose a case. They aren't going to take the case on contingency - they'll get paid either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say this. A few lawyers are about to find out they should have paid more attention in lawschool. Charging different platforms different prices is a practice as old as time, and is also why you should never use internet explorer to book airline tickets.
You can't possibly be a lawyer and say that because if you actually are a lawyer, you've got to be absolutely awful at the job.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I bet almost anything I know more about the law than you do. I have tons of friends who are lawyers. I ask them questions about stuff exactly like this. Look, in the USA you can indeed sue over anything. You get the right jury, you win. It is very arguably discriminatory to charge different price to users of different technology. The law
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer either, but I bet almost anything I know more about the law than you do. I have tons of friends who are lawyers.
I'll take that bet. You seem to have your knowledge from osmosis, whereas I got it from my major at university, and since it was a major in business law we spent a good year studying how the law impacts business decisions.
Look, in the USA you can indeed sue over anything.
I didn't say you can't. Going into a case knowing you're going to lose is not a sound business strategy. If you want to be a successful lawyer you need to pay attention in lawschool.
You get the right jury, you win.
You need to get to a jury in the first place, most such cases don't even get close. When you get to the jury
Re: (Score:2)
Another good example is those notices you see on everything saying it's a carcinogen. When that law first passed it was incredibly effective. There were tons of very dangerous carcinogens and all s
Re: Even if it does (Score:2)
Apparently every office building in California causes reproductive harm upon entering. Says so right on the sign posted at the entrance. :-\
Re: (Score:2)
No one is claiming iPhone use is protected and only an idiot would suggest that they are. It would be illegal, or not, based on the specifics of what they are doing. It is NOT that the victims are iPhone users, it IS that there are victims.
Pretty shameful post.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the limited scope of the testing done by the plaintiff though, this seems like it could just be a technical limitation. I suppose the court will figure that out.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not fraud, though. If you set a price and a customer agrees to it, that's it. Another customer isn't guaranteed the same deal. Fixed pricing is a relatively recent thing and not a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you can agree, in principle, that they can charge for deliveries further away than an arbitrary distance. I assume you further agree that they don't have to charge you the fee and could waive it whenever they want to. That's where "fuck you in particular" comes in. As long as their arbitrary distance is reasonable, whether the fee is charged or not or how much the fee is can vary without the fee or its name becoming fraudulent.
Re: (Score:2)
Door Dash is charging a fee based on distance, which is apparently not based on distance.
Except it still is based on distance. The fact that there are other moderating factors in pricing doesn't invalidate that it's primarily based on distance.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone user was charged the expanded range fee while ordering from in front of the restaurant. Range
It seems like a mislabeled junk fee.
From what little I know, the mislabeled junk fee would seem to have a better chance of success than the different pricing between iPhone and Android users.
What time was it? (Score:2)
Were these test orders made at the same time of day? Weekday business hours or weekend?
Re: (Score:2)
Not too surprising if true (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple customers like paying too much. Why wouldn't DoorDash take advantage of them?
Re: Not too surprising if true (Score:2)
I'm an iPhone user because I don't like paying too much. I bought my phone in 2016 and it still gets updates, which means I haven't needed to buy a new phone. Show me an android phone from 2016 running the latest version of android supported by the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
I have one. All it takes is taking care of what you own. Given the price of iPhones, that's probably why they last longer: owners pay more attention.
Re: Not too surprising if true (Score:2)
I had a nice LG slider phone at one point that I took care of. Then the keyboard came apart (little keys actually falling out) and the cable connecting the halves began to fail causing the screen to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
What Android phone from 2016 (or earlier) do you have that is still receiving updates?
I have an ancient Pixel as my current phone, but I can get out of band updates for it. That does not qualify for the statement about iPhone as they are receiving in-band updates (supposedly).
My experiences with Apple is that once a new product comes out, updates only slow down the older Apple device. That is why I stopped using them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm an iPhone user because I don't like paying too much. I bought my phone in 2016 and it still gets updates, which means I haven't needed to buy a new phone. Show me an android phone from 2016 running the latest version of android supported by the manufacturer.
If you bought an iPhone in 2016, I assume that means an iPhone 7 variant or older model. The highest version of iOS an iPhone 7 can officially run is iOS 15.5 whereas the current version is iOS 16 [apple.com]. Why are you holding a 2016 Android phone to standards that your 2016 iPhone doesn't even meet?
Re: Not too surprising if true (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an iPhone user because I don't like paying too much. I bought my phone in 2016 and it still gets updates, which means I haven't needed to buy a new phone. Show me an android phone from 2016 running the latest version of android supported by the manufacturer.
If you bought an iPhone in 2016, I assume that means an iPhone 7 variant or older model. The highest version of iOS an iPhone 7 can officially run is iOS 15.5 whereas the current version is iOS 16 [apple.com]. Why are you holding a 2016 Android phone to standards that your 2016 iPhone doesn't even meet?
It is true that Apple dropped major OS update support for their 2015 and 2016 phones last year. That still means that they provided major updates for 6 years or 7 years, depending, which is as long as any Android vendor even provides *security* updates.
And Apple continues to actively ship security updates for iOS 15; iOS 15.7.6 was released the day before yesterday. The oldest devices that are still getting security updates will turn 8 years old this September.
Re: (Score:2)
My phone is running iOS 15.7.5 which is supported by Apple.
Could be because apple charges more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you don't need to use appstores payment model or stick to only apple pay when your app sells physical items like food.
Makes sense (Score:2)
Par for the course (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also is the Windows app ad based, or upgradable via additional purchases, while the Mac is a flat one time fee?
Re: Par for the course (Score:2)
Did you check to see what it might be sending back to the company?
It might be "free" but there is loads of telemetry going on behind your back.
That's normal (Score:2)
Rich iPhone users subsidize the poor Android users.
Phone brand is not a protected class (Score:2)
Id wager that this fee is charged because apple takes a bigger cut of the bill
Re: (Score:3)
Id wager that this fee is charged because apple takes a bigger cut of the bill
Apple charges NO Fees for Transactions that are for Physical Items.
"Havers" (Score:2)
Did they check their location privacy settings? (Score:2)
Not DoorDash's fault if your phone keeps telling them your location is always at your state's geographic center.
Apple wants their 30 percent. (Score:3)
Are iPhone users a protected class? (Score:2)
I'd say iphone users have a proven track record of shelling out more money for the same product. Why should taking food orders from them be treated any different?
Re: Are iPhone users a protected class? (Score:2)
I've seen quite a few 'poor' people use iPhones that are several generations behind the current.
But imagine you had to pay more at the toll gate when driving a Mercedes instead of a Ford, and only later on you discover this because it wasn't disclosed up front.
You will be pissed.
Re: (Score:2)
But imagine you had to pay more at the toll gate when driving a Mercedes instead of a Ford, and only later on you discover this because it wasn't disclosed up front.
Of course you would be pissed. There are no laws preventing it, so you can be pissed and nothing can be done about it except not go that way again. It sucks, but what are you going to do? Pass a law? Many have tried. The devil is in the details.
The sinister side of me says (Score:2)
I think it's funny that the Apple fasionistas got targeted like this.
But the non sinister side says
This is wrong and Doordash needs to be turned into an example of what happens when companies engage in this kind of crooked behavior.
To protect Doordash from scamming (Score:2)
their customers, and protect other companies from doing the same, it's best to have tools available and ready to spoof strings that are sent by apps and web browsers.
Poisoning the data sent back to the mothership is the only way customers can get ahead in this game.
here is a wild idea on why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe its the Apple tax? Apple loves to get their share and make app's use their payment processing so to take 30% of the sale. that might be why you see higher price then others.
Apple charges NO fees for Transactions for Physical Goods, like Food.
Seems simple enough. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bummer I'm am an #iphone user!
Do you know how I can tell you arnâ(TM)t?
Re: Bummer I am am an #iphone user! (Score:2)
The simple fact that their post didnâ(TM)t include any âoeerrantâ characters is a tell. Lol
We iPhone users are cursed.
Re: Bummer I am am an #iphone user! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. I am using a iPhone to post this. I have "smart quotes" turned off. Posts just fine.
Re: Amazon already did this (Score:2)
When you give a kid a toy, and he uses it to bop his little sister over the head with it, you take it away from him.
When you give a company a toy, even one as simple as a "User Agent:" string, and it uses it to bop people in the wallet, you take that toy away from it.