[kevinschumacher]

I could be wrong here, but, I think the lawsuit is totally misdirected. Restaurants should be upset with the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) instead.

The problem is the ordering platforms enabling this integration without restaurant consent. (Or, perhaps worse, offering orders without restaurant consent?)

Google just provides an API that allows restaurant ordering from Maps, Search etc. It connects to the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) [1]. The ordering platforms integrate with this API by uploading data feeds and implementing a server with specific interface. [2]

I don't think Google even takes a cut!

I worked on an integration to a similar API, "Reserve with Google" [3]. With that one, at least, it can be enabled/disabled at the restaurant level. I assume that "Order with Google" is similar.

[1] https://developers.google.com/actions/food-ordering

[2] https://developers.google.com/actions/food-ordering/guides/b...

[3] https://www.google.com/maps/reserve/

[winternett]

Google takes a cut when those companies pay for ads on the platform. It's the old switcheroo...

For many years Google had run their search engine as a trusted source for indexed search with advertising subtly placed. Now that they are dominating the entire search market, they are skewing results to anyone who pays for promotion with them under the table, and it's not clearly apparent to users.

I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find a restaurant web site on google and it's buried under direct links to door dash and other order online services that add surcharges. It's so bad now that the only way I can ensure that I'm not being overcharged for no good reason is to order by phone or directly at restaurants. There is very little value added to so many online businesses now because of twisted Internet schemes like this.

[notjulianjaynes]

> Now that they are dominating the entire search market, they are skewing results to anyone who pays for promotion with them under the table, and it's not clearly apparent to users.

Slightly off topic, but as an example of this, I did a search for the manufacturer part number of a brushed DC motor the other day. It was just a randomish string of characters like S-5672 or something, and under image results and all the results were completely unrelated pictures of an entirely different brushless motor that I had recently purchased. The seeming effect of this is that Google knew I was looking for a specific product, and chose to show me a competing product instead, despite them not being comparable.

[Melatonic]

I have found their search to be less and less useful for things like this when it used to be great. Even searching in quotes has gotten much less "exact". If you really want to do an exact search you have to quote it AND now also check a box for "exact results" in the little search options dropdown.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The lesson is don't use Google search in a browser where you have their login cookies. Set up an extension that wipes their cookies when a tab is closed. Restrict logged in Google activity to a separate browser or profile that won't be used to build a behavioral profile.

[riverdroid]

Be aware of platforms publishing a 'proxy' phone number so they can still collect their fees: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756878/yelp-grubhub-comm...

[lupire]

Why? Do you also beware of restaraunt waiters collecting a fee for bringing you food you could get directly from the cook?

If you want to undercut an affilate referral, go to the restaurant ditrctlry instead of a third party leadgen site.

[vineyardmike]

> If you want to undercut an affilate referral, go to the restaurant ditrctlry instead of a third party leadgen site.

The whole issue is that the leadgen site is pretending to be the real restaurant to collect a fee. This isn’t just “why complain that DoorDash takes a fee when you use DoorDash”. It’s “company X is pretending to be restaurant Y in order to add a fee while providing no value added”.

[kevinschumacher]

> Google takes a cut when those companies pay for ads on the platform.

> I can't tell you how many times I've tried to find a restaurant web site on google and it's buried under direct links to door dash and other order online services that add surcharges.

That's definitely true, but that's not what's being discussed.

[demadog]

> Now that they are dominating the entire search market, they are skewing results to anyone who pays for promotion with them under the table, and it's not clearly apparent to users.

Do you mean for restaurant results specifically or all Google Search results? Big difference if both.

[tbran]

It's fascinating to me that the search results page on mobile is often three-ish screens of non-website links. Instead, it's ads, answers, images, and other random stuff. These things are either monetized or scraped from someone's website.

[josefx]

> The problem is the ordering platforms enabling this integration without restaurant consent.

The lawsuit seems to focus on the history of how that happened a bit. Namely Google seems to have initially tried to sell this API to restaurants directly. Hence the brazen trademark infringement and restaurant impersonation, it was intended to operate with the authorization of the restaurants directly. Only when that failed did they move on to third party distributors that didn't have any right to the trademarks, without changing the now deceptive interface.

> I don't think Google even takes a cut!

The lawsuit is a bit unclear on that (through information and belief) but also cites alternative revenue streams through ads and pushing more people onto its own payment platform.

[kevinschumacher]

> Namely Google seems to have initially tried to sell this API to restaurants directly.

...which was a fools errand. It is impossible to expect individual restaurants (_maybe_ aside from large restaurant groups - ie, big chains) to integrate with this API.

To me it seems much more likely that Google pivoted to working directly with delivery operators for practical reasons to make the product functional.

I would also bet that contracts with the delivery operators include a bit about how they will enable this integration and what that means. Perhaps they do not make it explicit enough in the sales cycle (or, didn't in the case of Lime)

[tomger]

Google doesn’t take a cut yet.

[kwertyoowiyop]

Bingo. Cripple the competition now, then turn on the money spigot whenever they want.

[dylan604]

Or wait until you gain critical mass, and then pull the plug on the entire project since it's not making money. It is the Googs after all.

[awill]

Good take. This made me thing of all the GOogle failures in a different light. It isn't just that they abandon users. They also crush competitors in the initial phase (by being free, or generally having Google branding), only to pull the plug. We often talk about the users left with having to find an alternative, but not the competitors they crushed along the way.

[asah]

In ads and commerce, Google has much longer time horizon... e.g. froogle was launched in 2002 and they rebranded and "turned on the spigot" in 2012.

[rlewkov]

Google wouldn't do that because ... well ... because don't be evil

[Melatonic]

Or discontinue the feature completely when the director in charge of the project gets bored with it

[emodendroket]

Not sure how that happens unless they decide to launch their own DoorDash clone.

[vgeek]

Froogle 2.0? Let them signup and invest integration efforts to get an intial free spigot of traffic, then yank the rug and start charging on a per unit basis once it reaches critical mass.

[manholio]

It is completely irrelevant if Google takes a cut or not. Google uses the restaurant's brand name to enable one of their delivery partners to undercut the restaurant's own delivery system.

The nature of the partnership between Google and the delivery firm is not directly relevant to the restaurant's loss of revenue. They could be building a future business, they could be compensated in an indirect fashion (ex. those who pay more to AdSense get a preferential treatment) etc.

[brightball]

I honestly don’t know how restaurants even get a say in the matter. Ultimately, as a customer I am placing a to-go order and hiring somebody to go pick it up for me.

DoorDash has made an effort to streamline the process. If to-go orders are an option then you really don’t get a choice in who I send to pick it up.

[wccrawford]

They get a say because those companies were doing everything they can not to let the customer know about that disconnect. Many customers thought the restaurant had agreed to the service, and were holding the restaurant responsible for mistakes the delivery companies made.

I'm not quite willing to call it fraud yet, but it's in that area.

[RegW]

> I'm not quite willing to call it fraud yet,

Great. So if you're happy with just a bit of disconnect, I'll get down the dump and pick up some old oil drums and fire up a kitchen in the garage. What do you fancy? KFC? Nandos?

No. If we can pretend to represent someone else without their concent, based on unverified 3rd party data, then we're cooking with tinned worms.

[brightball]

I can understand that aspect of it.

[mulmen]

Some restaurants don’t offer delivery for quality reasons. When Doordash impersonates those businesses the reputation of the restaurant is at risk.

It’s a classic case of internalizing the gains and externalizing the costs.

[lupire]

takeout /= delivery

[mulmen]

Exactly. Doordash makes takeout places look like delivery.

[tsimionescu]

They get a say through trademark law. If you show the KFC logo or even name on a service, you have to seek KFC's permission to do so.

[technothrasher]

As long as you're reselling actual KFC products, you are not likely violating their trademark. However, if you deceive the customer into thinking they are buying directly from KFC, then you likely are.

In a similar situation, Ferrari has often attempted to keep independent repair shops from using the Ferrari name and logo to advertise that they service Ferrari cars. They've lost quite a few times.

All that said, you can still run into copyright issues when reproducing somebody's logo.

[6510]

Not sure, who would pay the bill for the food poisoning?

If you are reselling my food am I still responsible for it?

Say you heat the container on your bike to a danger zone temperature. Say the order sits at the bottom but you have the same order on top. The food at the bottom could sit there all day.

Say I've also undercooked the chicken.

Who is to blame?

[Mikeb85]

The problem is that Google makes it look like it's part of the restaurant's own Google Business account but then directs to a 3rd party without the restaurant's explicit consent.

[Melatonic]

This is a very good point and I think perhaps, from a logic point of view, a huge issue.

[wnevets]

I just wish there was a way to disable that integration. I have to go out of my way to avoid using it and go directly to the restaurant site to place the order.

[mdoms]

Regardless of the underlying technical implementation, Google is offering an unsolicited Order Now feature to its users under the restaurants' brand.

[account42]

Depends, if paid ads were involved to list e.g. DoorDash higher on the results then I think google should deserve some of the blame.

[kevinschumacher]

I don't think you can blame Google for allowing a delivery operator to buy ads on a restaurant's name.

If it's the delivery operator's business model to buy ads to get a cut of an order, then, we should be upset with the delivery operator.

(edit: removed off topic and specific business)

[wgjordan]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame/be upset with both the delivery operator (for infringing upon the restaurant's trademark by causing confusion as to the source of goods/services), and the e-commerce platform for knowingly facilitating/allowing the trademark infringement to occur on its platform. This is called 'secondary' or 'contributory' infringement in legal jargon.

[gumby]

> Google just provides an API that allows restaurant ordering from Maps, Search etc. It connects to the ordering platforms (e.g., DoorDash) [1]. The ordering platforms integrate with this API by uploading data feeds and implementing a server with specific interface. [2]

> I don't think Google even takes a cut!

Yes officer, I did leave the bank door unlocked as a favor to my friend, but I didn't even get any of the stolen money!

[kevinschumacher]

This is a fair take. But in your analogy, we'd go after the thief, too, right? And the thief would get a harsher sentence?

Yet there's no lawsuit against the thief.

[gumby]

Door dash is odious and needs a comeuppance, no question. But their theft does not acquit their accomplices.

[sumedh]

> Yet there's no lawsuit against the thief.

Maybe they want to fight Google first and then sue the other parties depending on how the Google lawsuit goes.

[ptudan]

I would be shocked if google didn't get a cut, or at least a pay per click. Just doesn't seem like them not to

[jsnell]

The article addresses this, with the following quote:

> We do not receive any compensation for orders or integrations with this feature

It could of course be a lie, but that seems like a bad strategy.

[hypertele-Xii]

Imagine every part of Google is a neural network black box that has machine-learned to say and do whatever makes the company the most profit as a whole, lawsuits deducted.

[lmkg]

It can't deduct the value of lawsuits until it gets training data.

[trulyme]

The data is incoming, no worries.

[kevinschumacher]

It could be more of a strategic play to keep eyeballs on Google properties and further build the advertising profile. Also provides a foothold into entering the ordering/delivery/reservation businesses at a much later date if they so choose.

IIRC Google didn't take a cut on restaurant reservations, at least