Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

Yes, this is a completely unnecessary law. Restaurant phone numbers are seconds away using the same device used to order from these apps, and a phone call is free.

Absolutely no reason a restaurant can’t recoup extra costs by charging the app users more or simply refusing to do business with the app.

View on HN

A family member of mine owns a restaurant that does mostly delivery business. He employs his own drivers; he's on GrubHub because it brings in more business and is a net positive for his bottom line. He includes flyers with every order that says, in large obvious text, "Call us directly at [this number] and save 20% compared to GrubHub."

He still gets a sizeable amount of repeat business from GrubHub.

I've experienced the opposite. I used to order pizza on a phone from a local shop a few times a month but then one day a machine answered the phone telling me to order using Grubhub. I've never bought anything from that business again.

I am pretty sure he signed a contract that says he isn't allowed to charge GrubHub users more.

He's not charging more, GrubHub pads the price and charges a delivery fee.

This is explicitly against the ToS in his grubhub contract. While he may be doing it in a way that skates under the radar for now it is not scalable.

Non competes, price parity rules, and simply market exposure.

You cant start a book selling website without selling on amazon. The market share is too large to function without participating in the monopolistic market platforms.

What is https://www.barnesandnoble.com/ https://www.indiebound.org/ and https://bookshop.org/ (probably among a hundred others)?

Almost every restaurant I order from also has their own website you can order from.

Same with my experience, which makes it even more perplexing to me why people use these apps.

People use these apps because they're in some manner more convenient. The perplexing part is that anyone complains about such convenience to the point that government uses its heavy hand.

This discriminates against deaf/mute customers and customers with severe social anxiety who can't speak to another person.

Charging higher prices to the disabled violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

You could always obtain a TDD terminal, use those facilities to call the restaurant (call TDD, interpreter then calls the restaurant, ..) to place the order.

IANAL. You could also sue and see how it comes out.

The ADA requires the restaurant to make the accommodation, not the disabled person.

And that still doesn't solve the problem of people with social anxiety who are unable to engage in a conversation with another person.

There is a limit to reasonable accommodations. For instance, restaurants are not required to feed you if you cannot lift a fork.

From my reading, social anxiety has only recently been suggested as a disability under the ADA, in one state. I am unable to locate ADA material which outlines if, and to what extent, accommodations for this disability are to be provided.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com