Seems to me to be perfectly legal, if not morally right.
Did I miss something?
Perhaps not being morally right is something to have outrage about.
Personally I'm going to continue to block ads on the advice of the FBI regardless what some other people say about it, I'm going to continue to refuse to use third party delivery services, and I'm going to continue to refuse to use any third party rating or aggregator service for local businesses. And also I'm going to continue aggressively avoiding Google products and services.
I've just recently migrated to a daily driver android phone without any Google services sitting in the background.
Stay strong, follow the path!
I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller.
The point in general (slight change of position here) is that had they not stated "official", reselling is perfectly fine. As you point out trademark infringing (representing yourself as them by saying official) is not.
The identity fraud is core to the product. Had they not registered a domain that made them sound official and said that they were the other company, nobody would get confused and think they're ordering from the actual company.
Armani will tear you up if you set up "armani-losangeles.com" and pretend that you're Armani, even if you don't mention "Official Website".
Poor example, I'm fairly sure that the designer brands are most likely to sue parallel importers and grey marketers.
Well, evidently, it doesn't outrage you.
But my impression was the rage was more directed at Google and Amex, who were in a position to easily prevent the fraud but instead choose to benefit from it.
The one party who cannot do anything about it (except cancelling orders and calling their customers until the fraud stops) is the original restaurant.