This is a silly law. If someone feels like sending a courier to buy take away then that should be legal.
The problem is them impersonating the restaurant and giving customers the impression that the restaurant is offering the delivery service themselves.
> 22599. A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility.
Also the law seem to only include "food delivery platforms", which exclude couriers.
(Of course, I might be wrong, but it seems that the intent of the law is to stop impersonation, not couriers).
What I believe the law is forbidding is the lack of transparency, the false listing of phone numbers and taking orders on behalf of someone else.
EDIT: Btw, I'm not downvoting you as I can't downvote replies. I have upvoted to counter it.
Offering to courrier food from place A to B, including ordering the food from place A, should not be illegal. Pretending to be A to engage in that business is fraud, because you pretended to be A. It's that simple. This law is a giveaway to the companies that have already engaged in fraud.
> A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility.
I don't think you can use Apps to send someone there without a problem. They have to get 'express authorisation' from the restaurant before they can accept your order. That is silly.
You can't take orders on behalf of others, but you can freely arrange for someone in an app to "make an order" for you and then fetch the meal. That's my interpretation.
Of course it could/should be better worded, though.
EDIT: Also, someone also mentioned that courier apps are not "food delivery platforms", so the first few words of the paragraph you quoted already excludes them.
This law does not say that at all. It's completely silent on whether the platform can take orders. It prohibits a single specific action, and that action is arranging for the delivery of an order.
> you can freely arrange for someone in an app to "make an order" for you and then fetch the meal.
You can arrange for them to make an order if you want to. That's allowed. But "fetching" sure sounds to me like they are delivering the order. They can't deliver it unless they have the specific authorization from the restaurant.
X is the action the law allows or prohibits.
Y decides whether the action is allowed or not.
If "authorization to take orders and deliver meals" exists, then they can deliver. If "authorization to take orders and deliver meals" does not exist, then they cannot deliver.
"take orders" does not appear in the law anywhere else. It's only in the phrase "authorization to take orders", and in that context the law is only checking if that authorization exists. This particular law does not say when taking orders is allowed or prohibited. This law does not care if a platform is taking orders. It cares about whether the platform delivers, and it cares about whether the platform has "authorization to take orders and deliver meals".
-
Edit: Pretend for a second the law said "A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to own puppies and deliver meals prepared by the food facility."
Would that law have any effect on whether the food delivery platform can own puppies? Nah. The restaurant has to say "you are allowed to own puppies" before the platform can deliver, but that law is not imbuing the puppy clause with any other power. It neither allows nor disallows actual puppy ownership.
-
So my main point is not that a platform should get cheeky by trying to take orders but not deliver, or something.
It's that even if they're not taking orders, this law blocks them from delivering. If they don't have the authorization, they can't deliver, end of story. The restaurant didn't say they can have a puppy, so they can't deliver, and it doesn't matter whether there actually is a puppy.
My actions have made your service look bad, your customers unhappy and cost you money. You didn't know I was delivering your food!
I'm pretty sure that if you tried to resell food at scale from a major fast food franchise without proper licensing, you would get sued.
It doesn't really prevent me from acting as a middle man. I'd need to be careful about using their trademarks and making it clear that I'm not connected.
The concept of first sale certainly applies, although health code makes it complex. There's also the concept of the right to refuse service.
There is a clear exploitation happening here, I think it's right to find a way to stop it. We should get better at iterating on policy though, maybe this doesn't work out or stops some other kind of less exploitive business from operating and they need to adjust it.
It's new ground sure, but I think it's pretty clear that the delivery platform is a service provider to the restaurant and as such the restaurant should have some negotiating power. What if they want a cut of the delivery fee, or guaranteed delivery windows for their customers? Probably wouldn't get it, but that's a negotiation they should be able to have.
Second to that, the law doesn't prohibit it, it just makes the delivery service seek an arrangement first. I am not terribly saddened by the fact that the delivery platforms have to do some groundwork instead of just web scraping a bunch of menus and making money off splitting all the risk between restaurants and customers.
Because that’s what their customers want, and providing something that their customers want should probably be one of the most important things for a business to do.
The only genuine harm that can be caused to these businesses by the delivery companies, is if the delivery company is legitimately impersonating the restaurant. Which as I said, would already be illegal.
The actual “harm” that this law addresses is somebody making a profit of providing a service that the restaurants think they deserve a cut of (just because?...). Hilariously, this type of arrangement is the most beneficial thing the restaurants could have. Because they’ll find if they’d try and make one of the arrangements with a company like UberEats, that what actually happens is the delivery company will be demanding a cut of their revenue instead.
Criminalizing a type of customer based on whether they intend to on sell the product after purchase is just entirely stupid. It’s one of the many stupid laws we have that only seek to protect dead business models that consumers no longer want. Just like the DMCA and all of the car dealership laws we have.
All the bill is asking for is cooperation up front, not afterwards if at all. It's not criminalizing the business model of DoorDash and friends, it's just forcing them to treat their business partners like business partners.
I think it's fair to say I have some bias here though. I am a little bit too cynical toward these companies to believe they're just out here trying to better the world. They're doing their best to spin a buck before going public and peacing out. Case in point, DoorDash just IPOd with no profit and no projection for profitability, even in it's best case scenario (massive increase in online ordering).
So obviously the service is extremely useful, people find it useful while it's subsidized but no one has yet bared the full cost of these platforms.
In my opinion we need to protect existing businesses who are profitable and thus have a proven place in the economy, while these disruptive companies flail about free from the shackles of actually fitting into the economy, just in case it turns out they wouldn't.
It’s also silly to say that these delivery apps are trying to make the world a better place. They’re just providing a service to consumers. They’ve certainly changed the takeout food market significantly (and in a way that is very beneficial to consumers). But they’ve also made it harder for takeout food businesses to operate, because they’ve massively increased the competition they face. Takeout restaurants used to only compete with other nearby take out restaurants, for the business of customers within a convenient distance from their location. Now they have to compete with businesses from miles away too.
This is fantastic for consumers, which is generally who should benefit most from these sort of regulations. This law is an absolute affront to consumers, and serves only to protect bad businesses from having to address innovation. It’s understandable that these businesses want a slice of that value, and I’m sure you could tell a very sympathetic story about them. But they did nothing to create this value, and the law shouldn’t exist to shield them from competition.
Perhaps the law is poorly written. That happens sometimes; more often when you behave in a way that invites regulation.
The problem is when it's a growth-oriented SV company.
You shouldn't be able to exploit the restaurant brand, logo and reputation without their consent, otherwise they wouldn't have any mean to protect themselves from bad reviews that would damage their image even in other platforms.
This might be accompanied by the service taking their cut out of every meal ordered through the site, forcing the restaurant to lose money on the orders.
That's not just listing, it's a racket.
GrubHub was caught doing this, I believe.
> A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility.
Nothing there is talking about apps or listings.
> Food delivery platform” means an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer.
Should it be legal for a business to ban somebody for any non-protected reason?