If a restaurant welcomes takeaway orders then whether you order and collect in person or hire someone to do it on your behalf is irrelevant.
That's why I think this bill is ill-thought-out.
If there are shady practices taking place then they should be dealt with with existing legislation and, if needed, with new legislation specifically targeting these practices.
Instead, I suspect this will only restrict services and competition, which ultimately won't be beneficial for consumers and restaurants alike.
> If a restaurant welcomes takeaway orders then whether you order and collect in person or hire someone to do it on your behalf is irrelevant.
This is a big if, because existing outcry already belies that this assumption is actually not reality.
Besides, if that’s the case it should be super easy to call the restaurant and ask to be a partner. You can mail them stickers to advertise for your delivery platform by pasting it on their doors/windows. “Official GrubHub partner” could even be a badge of legitimacy because GrubHub needs to protect their reputation as a source of good restaurants.
It is not an assumption. It is irrelevant to the restaurant. The "outcry" is not about that, it's about shady practices and some problems with online reviews, which partly stem from said shady practices, and partly because some people are not understanding the service (this bill won't change that).
If a restaurant welcomes takeaway orders then whether you order and collect in person or hire someone to do it on your behalf is irrelevant.
That's why I think this bill is ill-thought-out.
If there are shady practices taking place then they should be dealt with with existing legislation and, if needed, with new legislation specifically targeting these practices. Instead, I suspect this will only restrict services and competition, which ultimately won't be beneficial for consumers and restaurants alike.