Wasn't sure if this would belong in ~news or ~food but oh well. If I'm understanding this right, some restaurants have low commission (3%) if they provide their own delivery drivers, while...
Wasn't sure if this would belong in ~news or ~food but oh well.
If I'm understanding this right, some restaurants have low commission (3%) if they provide their own delivery drivers, while restaurants without their own delivery workers can expect to pay 15% to GrubHub. To extract more money out of restaurants, GrubHub does some shady "marketing" campaigns by setting up websites for restaurants...with fake domains, stolen or fake images, and online + phone ordering services controlled by Seamless (one of GrubHub's subsidiaries). If people buy from these "marketing" services, they can charge a 20% commission. They do this even if the restaurant already has their own website, and even if the restaurant hasn't partnered with GrubHub yet (they can't claim it's allowed in the contract if one hasn't been signed in the first place).
But since GrubHub is a large company and many restaurants have tight margins, it's unlikely many can pay to out-SEO GrubHub's fake websites or seek damages in court.
Edit:
Grubhub denies wrongdoing, noting that this practice is intended to help boost restaurant orders. "[...]We no longer provide that service and it has always been our practice to transfer the domain to the restaurant as soon as they request it."
Aka "we stop doing bad things when we're called out for it", which is what I keep telling the cops when I get pulled for speeding but they don't let me off the hook...
Edit 2: The spokesperson didn't elaborate on how exactly they go about requesting it, which makes me wonder if it's a simple form you fill out or if you have to hire a lawyer to send a strongly-worded letter. Plus, there's always domain transfer fees that the restaurant will likely have to pay...what a racket.
Edit 4: The fake phone numbers forward the call to the real number of the restaurant, but since it's a "marketing" phone number, GrubHub gets a commission, even if it's not a delivery order. When calling these numbers, "For the customer, the experience is the same", which means there is no disclosure that the call is being recorded. One of the restaurants featured, Molly Hatchet’s Sub Shop, is based in Daytona Beach, FL, which is an all-party consent state, making these recordings illegal unless the restaurant owner is identifying every GrubHub caller and informing them of the fact (not sure who is legally responsible for disclosure here, and I wouldn't be surprised if some owners didn't even know the calls were recorded).
Because nobody has any idea how to enforce those laws in the internet era. And there is no urgency in figuring it out either. This is the 21st century version of the wild west.
Because nobody has any idea how to enforce those laws in the internet era. And there is no urgency in figuring it out either.
This is the 21st century version of the wild west.
Re-inforcing my belief that the only ethical way to order food is to go to the restaurant directly and buy it, get the number they use from them, plug that number into contacts and use that number...
Re-inforcing my belief that the only ethical way to order food is to go to the restaurant directly and buy it, get the number they use from them, plug that number into contacts and use that number only from now on. Forget app ordering, unless it's a chain that has a fully featured app. Disruptive companies have screwed mom and pop businesses for years. If you truly care about your neighbors who run local restaurants, you'll visit your local restaurant in person, collect their number to use in person, put that number in your contacts yourself, and use those exclusively. Don't trust google, don't trust "that must be it" searches for lookalikes.
Wasn't sure if this would belong in ~news or ~food but oh well.
If I'm understanding this right, some restaurants have low commission (3%) if they provide their own delivery drivers, while restaurants without their own delivery workers can expect to pay 15% to GrubHub. To extract more money out of restaurants, GrubHub does some shady "marketing" campaigns by setting up websites for restaurants...with fake domains, stolen or fake images, and online + phone ordering services controlled by Seamless (one of GrubHub's subsidiaries). If people buy from these "marketing" services, they can charge a 20% commission. They do this even if the restaurant already has their own website, and even if the restaurant hasn't partnered with GrubHub yet (they can't claim it's allowed in the contract if one hasn't been signed in the first place).
But since GrubHub is a large company and many restaurants have tight margins, it's unlikely many can pay to out-SEO GrubHub's fake websites or seek damages in court.
Edit:
Aka "we stop doing bad things when we're called out for it", which is what I keep telling the cops when I get pulled for speeding but they don't let me off the hook...
Edit 2: The spokesperson didn't elaborate on how exactly they go about requesting it, which makes me wonder if it's a simple form you fill out or if you have to hire a lawyer to send a strongly-worded letter. Plus, there's always domain transfer fees that the restaurant will likely have to pay...what a racket.
Edit 3: The source this article was based on: https://newfoodeconomy.org/grubhub-domain-purchases-thousands-shadow-sites/
Edit 4: The fake phone numbers forward the call to the real number of the restaurant, but since it's a "marketing" phone number, GrubHub gets a commission, even if it's not a delivery order. When calling these numbers, "For the customer, the experience is the same", which means there is no disclosure that the call is being recorded. One of the restaurants featured, Molly Hatchet’s Sub Shop, is based in Daytona Beach, FL, which is an all-party consent state, making these recordings illegal unless the restaurant owner is identifying every GrubHub caller and informing them of the fact (not sure who is legally responsible for disclosure here, and I wouldn't be surprised if some owners didn't even know the calls were recorded).
How is this not a straight up trademark violation? Stuff like this is literally what trademarks were invented for.
Because nobody has any idea how to enforce those laws in the internet era. And there is no urgency in figuring it out either.
This is the 21st century version of the wild west.
It's not a "service" if you're doing it without the restaurant's knowledge or permission.
Re-inforcing my belief that the only ethical way to order food is to go to the restaurant directly and buy it, get the number they use from them, plug that number into contacts and use that number only from now on. Forget app ordering, unless it's a chain that has a fully featured app. Disruptive companies have screwed mom and pop businesses for years. If you truly care about your neighbors who run local restaurants, you'll visit your local restaurant in person, collect their number to use in person, put that number in your contacts yourself, and use those exclusively. Don't trust google, don't trust "that must be it" searches for lookalikes.