I don't really understand this point of view.
They're saying you'll get food from restaurant X. That's exactly what you do get, at the price you agreed.
I can't conceive how that's fraud or misrepresentation?
Doesn't matter if you end of providing the exact same service.
What if I picked up calls going to Apple and all I did was transfer you to the correct person. You are still getting the same service if you called Apple directly but its not legal because Apple did not give me permission to impersonate them.
Or what if a private entity picked up your call to 911?
You're missing the part about how GrubHub, et. al don't just pass you along, they charge 12-30% "commission" just for forwarding the call -- and they set up the fake number just so they could do so.
Charge them for what? When a customer uses the GrubHub site/app to place an order, they are explicitly choosing Grubhub to service that order.
If I choose to call a restaurant rather than use the GrubHub site/app, I'm explicitly choosing to deal with the restaurant directly. As such, GrubHub isn't entitled to an "affiliate referral" fee.
When a website and/or phone number claims to be an entity that it is not, and does not disclose that fact to the customer, then charges a fee based on that deception, that's fraud.
No. You're searching DDG or Google or Bing and a website for the restaurant comes up.
It says it's the restaurant. It has the menu and the phone number. But it's not the actual phone number of the restaurant. Nor is the website set up or endorsed by the restaurant.
Both are owned and controlled by a third party (in this case, GrubHub) which claims to be the restaurant, and by virtue of SEO-spamming the site to the top of the search results, you get that site instead of that of the actual restaurant.
I'm trying to decide whether or not you're ignorant or just being deliberately obtuse. Care to settle the controversy?
IIUC, Affiliate marketing is when an online retailer pays you a commission for traffic or sales generated from your referrals.
That's not fraud or misrepresentation.
In the case of Grubhub, et. al, fake phone numbers, they aren't recommending a restaurant. They are claiming that the phone number is the restaurant. Those who call that number aren't clicking an ad because the "affiliate" promoted it. They are calling that number because they'd already decided to contact that particular restaurant, but were redirected to another entity -- with a monetary interest that harms the restaurant -- that doesn't disclose their third-party status.
And that's certainly at least unethical, if not outright fraud.
The calls are forwarded so that Grubhub knows about them (and can get commission), but the customer that still talks to the actual restaurant.
* That place is expensive (GrubHub sets the price which can be higher than the restaurant) * That place screwed up my order (GrubHub's game of telephone made an error) * That place is so slow (The now multi-step transaction slowed down the process)
>> They're saying you'll get food from restaurant X.
They're actually failing to say this, so the reasonable interpretation is "We ARE restaurant X" which is the fraudulent representation at the heart of the case here.
YOu can end up getting poorly delivered cold food from GrubHub and make restaurant X look bad.
Restaurant X might end up having a load of disappointed customers, reduced custom and have no idea why. They dont know there is actually now a middle man they didn't agree to between them and their customer.
When it’s Apple suddenly everyone argues the opposite!
Second, I think the impersonation is the biggest issue. At a minimum, that sounds like trademark infringement; at maximum, that sounds fradulent.
IANAL and am just a dog on the internet, so grains of salt the size of Jupiter. But I don't think the comparison to non-prepared food industries are at all relevant.
I can sell a Mac but can't hold myself out as a representative of Apple.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that you're contacting the restaurant, which you're not.
It's at the very least a trademark violation, this is exactly what trademarks were set up to prevent.