Foods & Culinary

The delivery giants DoorDash and Grubhub are suing San Francisco for the permanent fee

In June, San Francisco was recognized as the first city in the country to permanently increase delivery charges. Many cities took temporary emergency measures during the pandemic, but SF was the first to show permanent legislation by DoorDash, Grubhub, and other grocery suppliers to keep the fees they charge restaurants at 15 percent long after End of the pandemic to raise. Now, as expected, the PS are fighting back: DoorDash and Grubhub filed a lawsuit against the city and county of San Francisco on Friday, July 16, as reported for the first time Restaurant operation.

In the lawsuit, DoorDash and Grubhub say that “the introduction of permanent price controls” is unnecessary, harmful and unconstitutional. As in the past, the companies argued that the C would harm restaurants and threatened to pass the cost on to consumers, which they have already done with additional fees. DoorDash is headquartered in SF and also owns Caviar, while Grubhub is based in Chicago. Both by Dash and Grubhub have published company blog posts and even designed DoorDash an Infogrhic Multimediawhich apparently aims to educate customers about “price controls” or “price fixing” that companies are now using.

“The city of San Francisco has passed hasty, adverse and unconstitutional price controls that leave us no choice but to resolve this matter in court,” a DoorDash spokesman said in a statement. “Constant price controls are not only against the constitutions of the United States and California, but will likely harm the restaurants the city claims to support. The introduction of permanent price controls is an unprecedented and dangerous exaggeration by the government and will limit the possibilities that small businesses rely on to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. ”

The lawsuit mentions that Mayor London Breed, who originally proposed the Emergency Provisional Ordinance, refused to sign the permanent ordinance, at least not until some final amendments were made to address concerns. In conversation with the SF Chronicle, however, Warden Ahsha Safai and a spokesman for Warden Aaron Peskin, who both endorsed the legislation, said they stand behind the ordinance and expect the city to successfully defend this new lawsuit.

Local restaurants were relieved when the permanent c was proven, but now, “We’re disappointed to hear of the delivery companies’ pending lawsuit against the city of San Francisco’s delivery laws,” GGRA’s Laurie Thomas said in a statement. The GGRA communicated with DoorDash in particular and was even surprisingly supportive when DoorDash introduced new price levels in ril. These levels start at 15 percent on a basic plan, but promise more marketing and better advertising in the higher levels of 25 or 30 percent; it leaves open the question of whether the basic restaurant plan is viable or whether owners will be pressured and sold. DoorDash now says the majority of restaurants have voluntarily opted for these higher tiers.

In a shared story for many SF restaurants, Beit Rima’s Samir Mogannam says he “boycotted” and refused to accept any delivery prior to the pandemic because of the huge cuts they called for 25 or 30 percent and their aggressive public relations. PS cooperate calls. He says he only signed to DoorDash and Caviar during the worst part of the pandemic to save his troubled business when he was able to negotiate them to 10 percent after a month of “bitter talks”. “I never wanted to deliver from the start,” says Mogannam. “I didn’t like the way they exploited their workers and hollowed out restaurants.”

He says he’s grateful that the city of San Francisco was able to put a permanent C in place so that his restaurant colleagues, who may not be as influential as the hugely popular Beit Rima, can get a similarly fair deal. “I believe that SF as a city has the right to protect small businesses from large corporations that harass and undermine them,” says Mogannam. Taking into account the current legal dispute: “It is in the best interest of Liefer-PS to resign. If you really want lasting partnerships, instead of shutter restaurants. It’s just another case of greed. ”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *