DoorDash, Grubhub, Uber Eats sue NYC for trying to permanently cap delivery fees

Three of biggest US food delivery outfits – DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub – have sued New York City to stop it enforcing a limit on the fees they can extract from restaurants. In May 2020, the city temporarily ordered food delivery apps to charge restaurants no more than about 20 per cent of each order total to deliver …

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to give *any* of those vultures a dime; have you seen what they gouge the *restaurant* for fees?

Absolutely *criminal* "servince" in my books...

[FILE_ID.DIZ]

Yea...

I'll use grubhub and ubereats to find new places.... and then I use google to find the restaurant's actual website and/or their real phone number and order that way.

The shitty thing is I've noticed from time to time is when Uber Eats provides you a $20-$25 discount, that discount barely covers their fees.

So, thanks for the nice directory.

[ronkee]

I agree, let them increase fees. Increasing fees would make them uncompetitive and people would just order direct from restaurants.

Restaurants higher margins would allow them to run cheaper takeaway menus, as many do or did.

Customers would pay the same, restaurants would get the same. Delivery services would get the same, if they were used.

But if it's 20% of a £50 order plus a £2.50 delivery charge, customers now have choice of paying £12.50 for delivery or picking it up themselves. Given a choice a lot of people would choose to keep their money. So the NYC proposal is very customer friendly, shame it didn't go far enough.

Funnily enough another benefit of removing restaurant delivery fees would be that far more restaurants would use those services. So more choice for customers, new customers for restaurants and more business (at lower margins) for delivery services.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's add a little perspective here. The customer wins with a cap, fair enough but the cap hurts drivers more than the restaurants.

Also, some restaurants don't want the burden of hiring delivery folks and purchasing fleets of vehicles because they don't have the space or budget to maintain the vehicles. Worst of all the drivers are worse off because they will be paid less...especially in the US where service staff are treated like cattle.

I used to own and run a courier firm and I am well aware of the costs involved. Especially for the drivers. The fleet you can reduce maintenance fees on by getting rid of vehicles when they reach a certain age and only have leased vehicles with a maintenance contract built in...but drivers...they get a hard time.

Personally, I looked after my driver's and as a result they looked after me...they were very loyal and I paid them well...double the average rate...I also rested them for a week every 4 weeks by rotating them into the warehouse and putting them on short shifts. I effectively used them as extra hands in the warehouse for misc stuff which meant I kept my warehouse clean and organised and trucks got loaded fast as I had an overstaffed warehouse all the time. Nobody had to bust a hump because there were many hands. As a bonus, because everything was extremely efficient all the time, I was able to compete at a high level. I was even being given work by the big firms...DHL, TNT etc...I even scored contracts from John Lewis, Harrods and a few other well known department stores to plug gaps in their service.

Restaurants woulnt do this as they can't. How do you rotate a driver into the kitchen or front of house?

The only restaurants I've ever seen this happen in are Indian / Chinese restaurants. They hire extra waiters and rotate them around deliveries.

Italian / French waiters would never do that. Especially Italian waiters.

My point is, if drivers have more options to choose from for work, their rates can increase and everyone can get a fair deal. It's not just about the customer.

The customer and restaurants have to accept that delivery is an extra service and comes with its own costs. I'm pretty sure the restaurants accept this, which is why they pay to be listed, but the over entitlement of customers and the expectation of super cheap or free delivery is insane.

I might be crazy, but I'm perfectly comfortable to pay more for delivery to ensure that everything is fair. If a delivery driver has to travel 20 mins to get to ke and 20 mins back, burn fuel, wear out his car etc then I calculate that service to be worth at least £8 no matter what I order. If I'm paying less than that for a local delivery, someone is losing out somewhere. Probably the driver. That's without factoring in the time I saved not having to collect the delivery myself...which at the hourly rate I charge for my services works out to be quite a lot more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagree. Given a choice I would still pay for delivery. My time is worth more than the delivery fee.

What will happen is the poor will get another stealth tax in the form of losing time every time they want food ordered in.

Basically, if you're wealthy and can afford delivery you get the convenience and save time if you're poor...it's back to queuing at McDonalds for you.

Herein is a key difference between rich and poor. The rich happily trade money in for time (because that's sensible, money is transient, time is limited) but the poor are willing to trade in time for money (because they think saving every penny will make them better off in the long run, because wealth and a plush lifestyle comes from living as cheaply as possible right?).

The same mentality can be seen all over the place. The rich hire cleaners, assistants and so on. The poor do it all themselves.

"Oh yeah, that's because they can afford it!" I hear you cry...but hear me out.

That time saved by hiring people is used to make more money. Let's look at the rationale.

If I can earn £50 an hour working am I better off using that hour for:

a) Paying someone locally £10 for that hour so I can bill for that hour and pocket £40. Benefiting me and the lawn care guy.

Or...

b) Mowing the lawn myself. Losing £50 and an hour of my time and benefit nobody other stopping my wife nagging me.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are earning 24 hours a day? Wasting sleeping and who knows how much going to the toilet each day?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but at the time I'm likely to use a delivery service (lunch time), I am likely to be able to earn...I'm a techie, lunchtime is one of the the best times to do server maintenance and I'd rather do it then than in the evening or the weekend. Know what I mean? If I do use unsocialable hours to do this work, I'm likely to order a delivery because I won't have the time to cook

Even if I'm not working, I'd pay more for delivery because I'd rather be watching a movie or spending time with my kids or shagging my wife. There's a million things I'd rather do than trudging to a restaurant and sitting around like a twat waiting for my food to save a few quid. My time and my family is worth hell of a lot more than a tenner for delivery.

Anyone burning time to collect food is seriously undervaluing themselves, their time and their family and anyone seeking to pay peanuts for delivery is seriously undervaluing delivery services. Delivery folks are trading in their time for relatively little so that you can enjoy your time. Fucking pay them you cheap skate.

If you can't afford it, stop demanding that it be cheaper and cook your own meals in bulk in advance to save time and money.

You probably have a freezer and a microwave, leverage them to your advantage. They aren't just there for storing and reheating chicken nuggets and leftovers.

If you don't have space in the freezer, stop buying massive boxes with only 4 ice creams in. That space can be used to store 1kg of home made food that you made in advance e.g. curry, stew, bolognese, noodles...whatever you like that you can reheat later that can be densely packed.

Stop being a wanker.

People like you moan about the rich sitting on pikes of money and not spending it when in reality that's not what they do, the rich don't scrimp to get something for nothing and cheat each other out of money only the poor do that.

I'm not rich, but I'm poor either but living like the former works out better than the latter.

I order deliveries once or twice a month. If I pay say £8 for each delivery that would cost me approx £190 a year. If for half of those deliveries I'm working for that hour because they're lunches and I'm charging an average of £50 for those hours I'd earn around £600. Less the £192 I'm left with £410 which more than pays for the food and still leaves me with money in my pocket. I charge double for evenings and weekends. Triple for a Sunday or a bank holiday. Which makes delivery even more beneficial and trivial.

If I collect, I'm saving the £192, but I'm not earning the £600. So I'm £192 down before I've even paid for the meal. So I'm down no matter what. I haven't actually saved anything. I just wasted my time, and depending on where I collected from, I probably still had to pay for parking.

I calculate that I'm probably at least £1500 better off if I pay for delivery. I'm happier, my wife is happier, my kids are happier...there's no contest.

Even if you don't earn money in the time saved, £192 a year is a small price to pay for more time with your family or doing something, anything else.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how much

is your yearly lost income on time spent shagging your wife?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So, how much

No because that is time well spent. Unfortunately though it's not tax deductable and doesn't count as exercise on my health / life insurance policy.

Weirdly though, if I wear a fitness tracker and wave my arm around to fake the stats I can get a discount on my health insurance and life insurance though.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Stop being a wanker.

Lead by example, then.

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope that I don't have to contribute to your medical care (ie through taxes) when you burn out from working too much and concentrating on money rather than actually living your life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I won't burn out because I'm not cramming my work in, I'm making time for it by offsetting tasks to delivery folks, cleaners etc.

If I did all those things as well as my work...then yes, I'd probably burn out.

If anything I'm less stressed because I don't have "crunch" deadlines because I have more time to do my professional work.

And no, I'm not paying bargain basement fees for a trafficked polish cleaner working for a Russian cleaning firm.

If her other clients pay the same rate as me, she's earning between £40k-£50k a year.

I know gardeners that earn north of £80k a year.

People that provide services like these are worth paying and they're worth paying well. Anyone that thinks cleaners, delivery people, gardeners and other such people are worthless and deserve less are scum.

I'll say it again, capping fees is bad. Regulators need to put money in the workers pockets.

If there should be any cap it's on the percentage of a worker's pay that can go in the company coffers and a cap on the bonuses execs pay themselves.

Exec pay should be direct linked to company performance through contracts won and maintained and hiring rate. Those are growth metrics that make sense.

Profit is a metric that should not be the primary metric because profit often comes at the expense of workers be it shitty conditions, overworking, low wages etc etc.

Capping delivery rates won't affect the company bottom line, it will only affect the delivery drivers. Even worse, those that can go to another job will, which leaves a work force that is more vulnerable that has no choice but to accept shit pay.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that you are better off than other people so can afford to do it. That person you are paying £10 for that hour. What are they going to pay someone £2.50 to do the same so they get what you got? Then that person that got £2.50 are they...

You have just pointed out that people who have money can do it, those that don't, can't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Those that don't work in jobs that usually have low wages because people with low wages use the services or someone higher up is skimming the money.

Fees should not be capped. Regulators need to work to put the money in the workers pockets not reduce the fees to keep the poor where they are.

Getting out of poverty has nothing to do with reducing costs and capping fees, it has everything to do with fairly distributing wealth.

The regulators are just working to keep the poor where they are.

If you, a poor person, demands that fees be lower you're driving your own wages down somewhere along the line.

If a pizza delivery guy will accept 2 bucks to deliver a pizza why should s cleaner expect more than a pizza delivery guy etc. That's the rationale behind wage comparison.

We like to think we live in a meritocracy and that wages reflect effort and output but sadly they don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

"the poor are willing to trade in time for money (because they think saving every penny will make them better off in the long run)"

Nonsense, the poor aren't willing and nobody asked them anyway. Being poor actually means "not having money", and earning very low hourly rates (if at all). They're not "saving", they simply don't have enough money left for frivolities. That's what being poor is all about: No money.

Don't you see that while you're making $50 an hour and can afford to pay $10 a peon to do your chores, said peon who is making $10 for that same hour won't obviously be able to do the same? You're rich, he's poor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely, that's why capping delivery fees is bad and people like me should pay more. That's part of the point I was making. I'd be willing to pay more for the reasons I outlined.

Capping delivery fees doesn't benefit anyone.

Capped fees keeps the poor, poor. Those demanding lower fees are idiots and don't know what they're asking for.

[ShadowSystems]

Ah look, RICO violations.

I also take exception to their claim of "fairly negotiated". How many times do you have to read a story about how a restaurant with no official website nor delivery service finds out through some news hounds barking at their door about "their" bad service only to find out that "they" have a site & a delivery service through some third party that never bothered to contact the restaurant in the first place? Then the delivery service tries to claim it was done in good faith to facilitate more orders to the restaurant or some other such bullshit. The restaurant gets the bad press for the actions of a third party the restaurant never fairly negotiated *anything* with, much less a delivery contract, so the delivery folks have been skimming money off the top the entire time & passing off any badly delivered product as the *restaurant's* fault. Fuck that. The delivery service should be forced to prove in court that they entered the contract, got the proper sign off/authorization to provide the service, & that they itemized the delivery charge to the customer prior to any order being placed, or else be slapped with criminal theft of money, interference with business, and every other charge the government can make stick. And it should be directly, personally, criminally, financially liable by the delivery company's C-level execs to pay the fines on pain of prison time. Did I buy from the restaurant directly or did I buy it from a third party? Was that fact made absolutely, unambiguously, crystal clear prior to the transaction being made? No? Then bitch slap those fuckers for fraud & extortion.

[Irongut]

Re: Ah look, RICO violations.

GrubHub's exact MO.

I spent a year writing software for restaurants and I heard a lot of cases of GrubHub setting up a poor quality delivery service without a restaurant's knowledge or permission. In some cases the restaurant had their own delivery service.

Everything I've read about GrubHub, Uber Eats and DoorDash tells me if they say a law is wrong then it is probably the most correct law you could have passed.

[Anonymous Coward]

As your reward, you won't have to consume any slobber that may have dripped on the food as the driver helped himself to HIS 10% delivery tax. (Only sometimes, but it happens).

[Cliffwilliams44]

Price controls have never worked. They always hurt consumers by either limiting the availability of the product or forcing price increases in other areas. This did not work in the 70s and it will not work now.

[Falmari]

Increase delivery prices for customers!

"increase delivery prices for customers" how?

No matter how the delivery cost are spread the customer will end up paying it. The more the restaurant has to pay the higher their food prices will be to maintain their profit margin.

Maybe a better idea for NYC would be to ordered the price charged for delivery (restaurant and customer) be itemised alongside the actual cost for the food.

[Chris G]

Re: Increase delivery prices for customers!

The delivery companies are already gouging as much as they can, if they charge too much to either the customers or the restaurants they will damage thier own business by putting people off.

The bottom line is greed and a cap makes them feel that someone is limiting that greed.

Also the three working together in the courts has the odour of a cartel.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Increase delivery prices for customers!

If they need to charge more than 20% of the order total, then either they are delivering a lot of low value orders and subsidising that from the fewer high value orders, or the business that has been subsidised by venture capital isn't actually viable unless there's only one or two players in the game.

I think what another poster said is right andt that the bill should be fully itemised for the services, just like it already is for the goods.

[doublelayer]

Re: Increase delivery prices for customers!

"or the business that has been subsidised by venture capital isn't actually viable unless there's only one or two players in the game."

It's that one. In 2020, a lot of these services got tons of orders. If they could make it work with their business model, they would have made lots of profit right then. Restaurants were signing up in droves, they had already built their platforms, people wanted spare income. In each case, they were well positioned even if they wouldn't be after the pandemic ended. Yet most of the efforts lost money.

[low_resolution_foxxes]

Re: Increase delivery prices for customers!

I heard some comments that 10% of all revenue going through these apps is spent on advertising. It's a furiously competitive market (in the sense of market share). But I have stopped using them now

Virtually all these delivery/appointment apps work the same way. Take 10-20% in fees, spent tons on advertising and management.

On the other hand, I hear a lot of newer businesses are finding they no longer have to rent an expensive shop on the high street, many are choosing crap industrial estates on the border of residential areas, this is apparently a significant cost reduction in the early days, if you can cope with the app tax!

[Cliffwilliams44]

Re: Increase delivery prices for customers!

You make your own point, when you either a) increase cost for a business or b) restrict pricing for a business they will always recoup that cost, and that cost will be borne out by the consumer. Government should never be in the business of controlling the market, if one delivery apps prices are too high, use another. The same is true about taxes, corporate taxes are always paid by the consumer!

The only time the government should restrict pricing is during emergencies.

[RobThBay]

So why can't I order a meal for takeout and pay the same amount that the restaurant ends up with after dealing with a door dash order?

[ronkee]

Their contract with delivery companies prevents/severely limits them from offering collection discounts.

Same with all the middlemen. Hotels.com have a price promise with the customer and it's backed up by their contract with the hotel. Otherwise everyone would browse on the middleman platform and then go direct. Then the middlemen wouldn't have a business model. You can still do that but the hotel isn't allowed offer you a cheaper price ( unless you're a regular and you can call them to negotiate a discount).

[Winkypop]

Tepid or cold food delivery isn’t my bag

I pick up myself, every time.

Yes, not everyone can do this.

But personally I don’t want my food cold and delivered by someone who is getting paid a pittance.

Old fashioned, I know.

—-> I’m just popping out to get the nosh

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Tepid or cold food delivery isn’t my bag

I tried UberEats, but after I had twice food delivered that was pretty much cold by the time I got it I never used them again (after getting the meal refunded, and I hope they didn't bill the restaurant for it as it wasn't their fault). The idiots used bicycles for hot food delivery, and I have the impression that even the restaurant itself has no say in their choice for delivery.

I'm glad restaurants are opening again - takeaway is OK, but it's nice to go out again (and as for takeaways, I'll now get them myself, the app is now only serving as a way to quickly browse the menus).

[the spectacularly refined chap]

Re: Tepid or cold food delivery isn’t my bag

But personally I don’t want my food cold and delivered by someone who is getting paid a pittance.

Reminds me of something I was told years ago and have lived by ever since:

If you ever pass a chippy where people are queuing out the door get on the end of the queue. By the time you get served anything that had been left standing has been served and you get freshly fried stuff that is the best it can possibly be.

[Ken Moorhouse]

Re: anything that had been left standing has been served

There might be a corollary to that which is along the lines that if they completely sell out of something they might be tempted to break open those "out of date" packets waiting to be collected.

===

One day when I worked for London Transport we had some VIP's visit. One of us was asked to make tea for them, but we had run out of the stuff. Rather than go to the shop to buy some more, he fished out a few used teabags from the bowl we kept them in, prior to throwing, then used those. Ugh. Made sure he never made tea for me after that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: anything that had been left standing has been served

Maybe a Baldrick descendant?

What did he use for milk?

:)

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Tepid or cold food delivery isn’t my bag

"you get freshly fried stuff that is the best it can possibly be."

In the case if chippies, I much prefer the fish that's been in the hot storage for a good few minutes to properly drain off the oil. Straight out of the frier isn't "the best it can possibly be". Same applies to anything battered.

[Diogenes]

Re: Tepid or cold food delivery isn’t my bag

By the time you get served anything that had been left standing has been served and you get freshly fried stuff that is the best it can possibly be.

SWMBO owned a chippy for 3 years, she & her sister co-owner had a reputation as having the best burgers & fish & chips between the Victorian Border & Toowoomba on the New England Highway amongst truckies & grey nomads. Before setting foot inside she has a good sniff which tells her much, no matter how busy it is she won't set foot inside.

There is a very nice cafe only a few doors down from our temporary digs, it is always busy, and we would very much like to try it. We are just waiting for oil change day.

Icon, what happened over the weekend to No 1 son (35yo) when he didn't listen to his mother and bought takeaway from a shop where the oil reeked, despite its 5 star rating on the local FB group.

[Imhotep]

Re: Tepid or cold food delivery isn’t my bag

Me too. I can check the order at the restaurant so it can be corrected if needed and it arrives at my home intact and still warm.

And it means I'm the one who can try to put the moves on the lady of the house when the food is delivered.

[Ken Moorhouse]

Re: put the moves on the lady of the house when the food is delivered.

Are you referring to those moves depicted in pizza delivery movies that you won't find listed on IMDB?

[Imhotep]

Re: put the moves on the lady of the house when the food is delivered.

Absolutely, the pizza delivery documentaries and training films.

[Ken Moorhouse]

Re: Absolutely, the pizza delivery documentaries and training films.

I thought they were more about marketing the joys of becoming a pizza delivery driver?

Could this be the solution to the current dearth of delivery drivers in the UK due to Brexit?

(Cue arrival of CodeJunky and consequent downvote in 10 - 9 - 8 -...

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Tepid or cold food delivery isn’t my bag

"I pick up myself, every time."

Same here. I use local independents, and they charge the same (minus delivery charge) whether I phone, use their website, use JustEat or just rock up at the shop and order/wait. Picking up myself means no delivery charge, I know I'll get home while it's still hot and the takeaway keeps all the profit and stays in business longer.

The only reason many of them are signed up with JustEat and their ilk is because they were losing business to others who had signed up. They were forced into it and didn't get the early "sweetheart deals" the others got for the first year or so. But they had to do it as smaller profit is better than no profit by going under.

[skeptical i]

go get it your own self?

One would hope that if delivery charges rise too much, people wanting food plunked down at their door would do what we've always done: call it in, pick it up, then either take it home or eat it nearby. (Yes, there are mobility impaired people who NEED home delivery, I'm not talking about them.) Some of the best meals I've had were picked up, schlepped to a nearby park, and enjoyed under shade trees watching kids and dogs running around.

[Neil Barnes]

Those folks will then be less likely to order from restaurants

Unless they, just maybe, get off their backsides and actually visit the restaurant?

It's not just takeaway food. The internet is dominated by middlemen; those who want their cut and force the price up without providing any real service, and without any significant added benefit: try booking a hotel, or searching for insurance, or to change your power or water provider.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Those folks will then be less likely to order from restaurants

The internet is dominated by middlemen

My main irritation in one. Even if you KNOW the name of a business, the first hits you get are schleppers who will go to great lengths to appear local but who after some serious digging turns out to be a call centre who will despatch someone from miles away to get their fees.

The problem is that they use their ill gotten gains to appear first in searches, suppressing the real locals. Personally I think it should be made mandatory that a business displays its location as that also helps internationally (there are some jurisdictions I will simply not do business with due to the lack of protection of customers).

[Yet Another Hierachial Anonynmous Coward]

Re: Those folks will then be less likely to order from restaurants

Internet middlemen.....

A few years ago I wanted some bathroom furniture. Actually wanted to look at and feel it before buying. Gave up using online searches for bathroom salesrooms and found an old copy of a local business directory printed on dead trees. Went through the listing of local companies, then searched directly for their websites. Even searching directly for local businesses the results were often hijacked by middlemen and hangers on.

The internet really has become a lurid toxic swamp of lowlifes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Those folks will then be less likely to order from restaurants

I blame that on certain "advertising" companies that SELL those hijackers the keyword matches...

[Imhotep]

Re: Those folks will then be less likely to order from restaurants

"Actually wanted to look at and feel it before buying."

There are people who go to a brick and mortar store to actually see the item, then go home and buy it from Amazon or some other online provider.

So brick and mortar maintains a show room and inventory, actually performs the sale, and online vendor gets the money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Those folks will then be less likely to order from restaurants

> The internet is dominated by middlemen

I took great pleasure in finding a "cheapest price or it's free" offer from one, along with a cheaper price from the actual provider. I ordered through the middleman and immediately sent a "found it cheaper" refund request.

[Cliffwilliams44]

Re: Those folks will then be less likely to order from restaurants

Re: Insurance, anyone who doesn't use a local agent to get your car insurance is a fool! My agent can beat any online price by the big TV advertisers by hundreds of dollars. EVERY TIME!

The online insurance companies just tell you your getting a good deal, hoping you won't call a local agent.

[JJamesR]

Simple fix: instead, make a law that requires them to itemise the following at checkout: amount to delivery app, amount to delivery person, amount to restaurant, and taxes. This would give customers actual useful information in deciding which app to support.

I bet that alternative would shut up the complaints about a permanent cap pretty quickly!

[Giles C]

Well, the ones who will suffer will be the delivery drivers themselves.

Having said that some people are really lazy, my neighbour ordered a takeaway delivered, the restaurant is 100 yds away.

They are all mobile (2 cars) but no we will pay to get food delivered!

[John Robson]

100 yards and you point out their cars?

Slight fail in mobility planning there…

[Androgynous Cupboard]

I was once so violently hungover I ordered a delivery from some awful pizza place on the other side of the road from me. About 15 yards. Just getting to the front door almost broke me.

[John Robson]

Temporary disability - makes sense, just be grateful it was temporary (and avoidable in the future).

[Ken Moorhouse]

NYC... permanently cap delivery fees

Is it not in their interest to reduce the number of vehicles on the road and their emissions?

(OK electric vehicles don't emit at point of use, but they have to be charged-up somehow).

[Snowy]

Re: NYC... permanently cap delivery fees

Electric vehicles don't emit at point of use, an interesting idea but sadly quite wrong as your tyres are a major source of pollution and can be up to 1000 times worse than from the exhaust. I am somewhat sceptical about that figure as it appears in all the top results when I search for "how much pollution come from car tyres.

[quote]Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles. Compared with regulated exhaust emission limits of 4.5 milligrams per kilometer, the completely unregulated tyre wear emission is higher by a factor of over 1,000.[/quote]

[Ken Moorhouse]

Re: I am somewhat sceptical about that figure

Are you suggesting the compilers of these figures should tread more carefully?

[Snowy]

Re: I am somewhat sceptical about that figure

Just several articles quoting the same figure would indicate they are all looking at the same study.

[Quando]

Re: NYC... permanently cap delivery fees

At 5.8 g/km that must be some heavy tyres! At expected life of 10,000 to 30,000km that would be ~ 60-180 Kg of particle loss.. even split across 4 tyres that is way more than a standard tyre weighs at the start of its life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: NYC... permanently cap delivery fees

LOL. I guess there might be a scale problem here: 5.8 g for 100 km sounds more reasonable. At end of life it would have lost a little more than half a kg.

But the figure must be made up anyway: 5.8 g (not 5.7, not 5.9!) sounds like a scientifically precise amount but all types of tyres don't wear out the same. So which tyre is it?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: NYC... permanently cap delivery fees

And whatever the figures, we'd need to know the relative risk from the particles worn off the tyres compared to the various noxious fumes and particles coming from the exhaust pipe.

[Steve Graham]

The three largest food deliverers in NY are cooperating in a lawsuit? Doesn't that make them a cartel?

[Ken Moorhouse]

Re: Doesn't that make them a cartel?

I think a greasy carton is a better description.

[doublelayer]

Not in itself--if they otherwise compete with each other, they just happen to agree that they think something is illegal. Of course, given that they're all charging massive amounts to restaurants, there may be other collusion there, although probably tacit collusion not to compete for restaurant contracts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Industries form "cartels of mutual interest", and simply don't compete where they don't have to.

It's not illegal, and they don't have to get together, to all do exactly the same thing (to the customers) that is good for them

[Twanky]

Working class?

It used to be that only the wealthier people had someone prepare their food for them. Now we expect to be able to select, order and have our food cooked and delivered (hot) to our doors for a low price?

I like a takeaway (or carry-out as my Scots relatives describe it) from time to time - but I've never had food delivered (not groceries or ready to eat food). I also won't try a new takeaway without visiting and ordering over the counter at least once - I like to get a feel for how well they keep the customer area as a minimal guide to the state of the kitchens behind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Working class?

Oh?

Good for you but this isn't a moratorium on your eating habits. It's a story about delivery companies in New York City.

[Ian Mason]

Re: Working class?

The word "moratorium" doesn't mean whatever it is you think it does.

[Imhotep]

Re: Working class?

"When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

[Aussie Doc]

Re: Working class?

To be fair, Humpty Dumpty was just a fall guy anyway.

I'll get my coat.

[Jimmy2Cows]

Re: Working class?

Smashing.

[Twanky]

Re: Working class?

Strange. I thought it was a story about conflict over regulation between NYC and delivery companies and the ensuing fee-grab by lawyers.

My points were:

1) That historically only the rich could expect the sort of food service described

2) That I don't find the idea of the service described attractive

2a) also (by implication) that I don't think that either charging a huge delivery fee or next to bugger-all changes the value proposition.

Please don't impose a moratorium on my eating habits. I know I need to lose weight but that's rather an extreme way of going about it.

[Robert Grant]

Re: Working class?

It used to be that to send a message worldwide to those interested on a particular topic one would need to be fabulously wealthy. Now you just post a comment here without a care in the world for the struggling heraldry industry.

[GloriousVictoryForThePeople]

Re: Working class?

> "or carry-out as my Scots relatives describe it"

Is it just me who finds this brings to mind not so much hot chips, as something moved in a wooden box or roll of old carpet?

[Death Boffin]

Temporary Forever

NY has "temporary" rent control laws dating back to WWII. Why does these companies think their temporary cap would be any different?

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Nice restaurant you got there

It would be a shame if somebody hijacked your brand and advertising then told all of your customers that you're closed for business.

[Irony Deficient]

“Not only do price controls violate the US and New York Constitutions, …”

Price controls do not violate the US constitution; the “Nixon shock” of ending the US dollar’s convertibility to gold also instituted price controls (and wage controls). Both wage and price controls were also in place during World War II.

[DS999]

They have some nerve claiming contracts are "freely negotiated"

When they add restaurants to their delivery service without the consent of the owner!

[Swarthy]

Weird....

Uber(Eats), DoorDash and Grubhub are griping, but Postmates and Seamless aren't? And Seamless is strictly NYC-only.

I have it on good authority that most New Yorkers use Seamless (and maybe Postmates - but usually Seamless), so I would expect those two to be the major complainants, if this really did have a negative impact on earnings. It sounds more like the usual suspects are complaining that their liscence to print money has been revoked.

Remember, in corporate speak "we're losing money" can usually be read as "We're not making as much money as we would like"