SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Grubhub says its contract allowed it to create fake restaurant websites
Grubhub CEO Matt Maloney has responded to reports that his company creates fake websites for its restaurant partners, claiming that, according to its contract agreements, these businesses have signed away permission for Grubhub to engage in the marketing tactic on their behalf. According to a partial Grubhub contract obtained by the Los Angeles Times, a provision states that Grubhub "may create, maintain and operate a microsite ("MS") and obtain the URL for such MS on restaurant's behalf."
Grubhub provided The Verge with a similar snippet. Grubhub charges varying tiers of commission fees[pdf], the highest being "marketing commission" at 20-plus percent. The contract does not explicitly specify whether these microsites are considered "marketing" or what exactly these microsites would look like. Crucially, the contract does not specify whether Grubhub microsites would use proprietary restaurant photos, logos, or domain names that sound similar to / compete with the business's actual site. (Disclosure: my parents own a restaurant business that is listed on Grubhub / Seamless.)
In New Food Economy's report last Friday, restaurant owners say they "never gave [Grubhub] permission" to create these microsites and say the company is intercepting customer's direct orders in an effort to charge high commission fees. It is, however, possible that this fine print was overlooked upon contract agreement.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday July 04 2019, @03:52PM (1 child)
Shrink wrap EULAs full of unenforceable and vastly overreaching nonsense, the warranty with so many qualifications and conditions it's effectively a fake warranty, and the typical dozen clauses of fine print you agree to just to use the free WiFi at a restaurant are examples of legalese creep that's been going on for decades. In the 1980s, a contract to purchase a house was only 3 pages long. Today, I hear they run on to 30 pages.
Restaurant WiFi agreements are so ridiculous. You don't sign any agreement consenting to be monitored by their camera system when you walk in the door, they just do it. There's the classic "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, sometimes the "no alcohol" and "no outside food" signs, and more recently these longer winded notices against openly carrying firearms inside. By necessity, most of those are very short. But that WiFi document can have a dozen long winded clauses saying such pointless stuff as that you agree not to do any illegal activity on their WiFi.
The nervousness around the new and powerful is palpable in the far longer legal documents and harsher punishments that have been built up around technology. Pirate a few songs and you could be on the hook for millions in copyright infringement, but shoplifting one CD is a petty crime punishable by a fine of a few hundred dollars at most-- with the exception of the 3 strikes mania that's finally being rolled back in recognition that's it's overly harsh and counterproductive. Run a scan of a company's website, find a security flaw in the software, and the owners want you swinging from a tree for trying to hack them, while trying a door to see if it's locked is no crime at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @08:05PM
The consequences for a non-professional internet provider from a customer using the restaurant's wifi to torrent warez or cp are much more onerous than someone bringing in outside food.
If just for the public relations optics, they can point to the "usage agreement" and say "we tried to keep the creeps off!".