cleak

FWIW, my interactions with Carmack have shown him to be extremely pragmatic when it comes to tech. Going quickly from “we absolutely shouldn’t do that” to “ok it makes sense in that context”.

But it's up to the individual restaurants to agree to this. There's no automatic 30% commission. If a delivery company wants to burn their capital offering discounts, why stop them? The restaurant is under no obligation to sign a contract taking on the burden of kreping those discounts.

Companies are people too.

The key issue around all of this is transparency. Itemize costs, be clear how much money goes to each party, and state up front if you’re not affiliated.

Sure, but that’s not actually a commission from the restaurant. The restaurant earns the same amount regardless of if it was true takeout or GrubHub (for folks that haven’t opted in to being partners).

This seems like a very broad solution to a very specific (albeit large) problem. The main thing I keep seeing mentioned is impersonation. That can be solved without requiring explicit agreements, and may be counterproductive in some cases.

Imagine Joe’s Tapas actually needs to rely on deliveries during COVID and isn’t equipped to do it themselves. With this law they’d need an explicit contract with GrubHub or the like and that would surely include “we can do business using the Joe’s Tapas name for X”. There’d be no room to change the contact and even less protection for Joe’s Tapas having their brand ruined.

Why not solve the more narrow impersonation problem? Explicit transparency requirements and hefty fines for companies that run aground of them.

I’m confused. How is GrubHub getting a 30% commission out of restaurants that don’t actively partner with them?