Comment by dvtrn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvtrn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"I shouldn't have to carefully scrutinize every link ON Google and then double check I'm actually ending up where Google said it was sending me."

I've noticed it only a handful of times, but phone numbers for listings, can't be trusted either anymore [1]

GrubHub also does it: there has been more than one occasion where I've searched a restaurant in a new town while traveling for work, called the phone number to inquire about a menu item thinking I was dialing the restaurant but I had instead dialed a GrubHub or Goggle contact center.

At first I didn't realize what was going on, but quickly put it together after ordering from a restaurant that appeared in Google, using the "order form" and getting a phone call from a different voice telling me the item I ordered hadn't been sold by the restaurant in weeks due to sourcing issues.

"I just spoke with Mark, he said you do sell it"

"We don't have anyone named Mark working here"

I go check the listing again, check the phone number, and ask the person on the other end of the line what the restaurant business telephone number is: sure enough it's a completely different number.

Not sure how widespread this is or how to tell which restaurant phone numbers on these platforms take me to someone actually at the establishment, but....well...shit like this.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2019-08-06-grubhub-is-replacing-res.... (article is from 2019 but this has happened to me as recently as oct/2021)

From that endgadget article: Users wouldn't have ordered food "without our platform," company spokesperson Brendan Lewis said.

Ah yes, if it wasn't for GrubHub, we would all starve!

I've never seen the middle-man parasite's lie exposed this clearly. People have been ordering direct from restaurants for ages, but now that Yelp/Grubhub managed to muscle their way between restaurants and customers, they take credit for this entire business existing, to justify their sleazy practices.

It's a common talking point that if not for landlords (landleeches), nobody would have houses.

The bias is explicit here with the reference to "landleeches", but I'm still curious. Not everyone is able or willing to own a house, so landlords offer their property for rent. Typically the rent is determined by market value (supply and demand). What is the alternative in your mind? Would government fulfill that role? Or do you imagine some utopia where everyone can buy a house?

The alternative is that people could simply buy houses if they didn't have to compete with landlords.

When people turn a necessity (housing) into an investment (and by extension, a source of profit), then people/companies with means will buy up as much as they can and hold it, reducing the supply and raising the price of something that people _have_ to have. So, saying rent is "determined by market value" as if "the market" is an impartial omniscient force is misleading.

For a lot of the 20th century, _most_ people could buy a house regardless of their chosen occupation ("most" is doing a lot of work here- there's a long history of racism tied into housing acquisition, but my basic point is the same). You could be a blue collar tradesman and buy a house for your family of 4. So yes, I think that's definitely a (theoretical) possibility.

It's not outlandish either. We already have a much healthier model to copy: cars. There's no one buying up _all_ the cars and then leasing them to you at artificially high prices. There's (normally, chip shortages notwithstanding) plenty of cars and you can pick what best suits you- new / old / cheap / expensive / fancy / plain / etc. Housing could be the same way if the goal wasn't to extract profit out of those who can't afford to buy (or weren't born 60 years ago).

Do they actually pretend to be the restaurant on the phone, like they answer with "Tony's Pizza" if that's the restaurant?

They did, yes.

I’m not qualified to know whether or not this counts as some kind of fraud, but it was the final straw for me to stop using these delivery services once and for all after other unrelated negative experiences with them.

IANAL, but for the websites, it's easily trademark infringement. In-N-Out notably sued DoorDash over them using the In-N-Out logo on the site.[0]

It's understandable why. If a customer receives a bad order due to GrubHub, DoorDash, etc., it reflects badly on the restaurant, even if it's not their fault. See claim 29 from the filing[1]:

> Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s famous trademarks implies that Defendant not only delivers In-N-Out products to its customers, but that the quality and services offered by Defendant is the same as if consumers had made purchases directly from Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, the quality of services offered by Defendant does not at all comport with the standards that consumers expect from Plaintiff’s goods and services. Further, Plaintiff has no control over the time it takes Defendant to deliver Plaintiff’s goods to consumers, or over the temperature at which the goods are kept during delivery, nor over the food handling and safety practices of Defendant’s delivery drivers. While Plaintiff adheres to the Food Code, on information and belief, Defendant does not adhere to such regulations, including with regard to compliance with required food safety and handling practices.

[0]: https://money.cnn.com/2015/11/12/technology/in-n-out-doordas...

[1]: https://www.eater.com/2015/11/11/9714840/in-n-out-doordash-d...

this is one area where the FTC should be stepping in, It should be seen as blatant fraud for a business to represent themselves as another business to the point where users are confused who they are actually calling.

It always amazes me that the government is never concerned with things is SHOULD BE, instead is very concerned with things that should be none of its business.

Grubhub has been notorious for doing this for years. It's not surprising that Google is trying to take their cut.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com