Careful there... Apple (or any manufacturer) could say the same thing about Ebay. Any sports team or band could say it about Stubhub. Nike could say it about StockX.
It used to be that you could buy or sell airline tickets to people. There used to be ads in the newspaper classifieds. The airlines are very happy that that's not possible now.
Absolutely many companies in many industries would be happy to prevent people from doing X, both from a quality control and profit-maximizing perspective.
But if I buy a ticket from StubHub or a scalper on the street, the experience should be the same. Having a delivery company insert themselves into the process means they make accept orders where they don't have enough drivers, have to transport it too far from the restaurant to the customer (many/most restaurants have limits on delivery area for time/quality), etc.
So this seems completely different because the delivery companies are inserting themselves into the process as though they were endorsed by the restaurant.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
Restaurants will have to sign up with each delivery platform, and/or delivery platforms will have to sign up each restaurant. Either way, the net effect will be to protect the extant food delivery platforms from new competition.
A significant precent of ticket sales are last minute. A friend tagging a long or someone waiting for prices to drop. Food spoils and looses quality fast, but so do good from many industries. I think carving out an exception for food is potentially a slippery slope.
It would probably be better to carve out exceptions for any item that could potentially be worthless after some amount of time. Live event tickets, food, travel, etc.
Food products, especially restaurant foods, are regulated differently than non-food consumer goods. And have been for over a century. There are licensing requirements, safety requirements, and other rules that apply to restaurants that don't apply to other businesses.
And those "arbitrary" laws make all the difference in why unapproved middlemen should not be allowed for restaurant foods.
none of which are addressed in any way whatsoever in this new law. nor does this law add any licensing or safety requirements for the delivery person or delivery platform.
In requiring the delivery platforms to get permission from the restaurants, the delivery platforms are deemed agents of the restaurant and therefore are subject to any existing requirements that apply to food delivery.
IOW, the food safety rules now apply to Uber Eats, GrubHub, etc., without requiring a redundant set of new laws.
I haven't used StubHub in a while, but if they have move to being a first party distributor in some cases, i could see some confusion arising for a consumer.
example: https://www.amazon.com/Rolex-Datejust-126303-Silver-Bracelet...
would you shell out $13,000 for this watch from "AUTHENTIC WATCHES"? Are they authorized to sell Rolexes? Do they have any "arrangement" with Rolex? Would Rolex honor its warranty after this sale? Is the watch even new?
Also, there is the first sale doctrine, so they most likely do not need to be "authorized" to sell by Rolex unless you can only purchase a rolex by signing away the roght of first sale. (I'm not sure that's possible to do and am sure it's come up with Tesla, but haven't looked for any relevant cases.) (Whether or not you trust that seller enough to give them that kind of money is a separate issue; I do not.)
This isn't about these companies reselling food, its about them acting as an agent of the restaurant when they are not. They're also not selling me a "cheese pizza" for delivery and giving me one from a local place, they're selling me "company X's cheese pizza" for delivery, when Company X may not want their pizza delivered and has no knowledge of their listing by this company acting as their agent.