> The restaurant can opt out of this, but they never asked for the service in the first place so it's kinda shitty. That's what this article is about.
If the driver places the order without making it clear to the restauranteur that they are the middleman company (UberEats, Doordash, etc.) then the opt-out clause is meaningless. You can't opt out of something you're never aware of.
yes - this is not "opt out", it's not even "default opt-in" like the telecoms got spanked for a few years ago, because they have no pre-existing relationship. It's fraudulent representation.
While I agree, restaurants do tend to pick up on this over time because (more issues with Place & Pay) people will complain to the restaurant about food being cold/slow not realizing that the restaurant isn't even involved in the delivery. Sometimes the delivery people make it quite obvious (e.g. drivers are given GH branded credit cards to pay with)
> people will complain to the restaurant about food being cold/slow not realizing that the restaurant isn't even involved in the delivery
By using their name in commerce, restaurants have a trademark.
People complaining to the restaurant about delivery shows that consumers mistook the Place & Pay vendor for the restaurant. This is proof that the trademark was infringed.
I don't see how Place & Pay could survive a court case, or even prolong one.
If the driver places the order without making it clear to the restauranteur that they are the middleman company (UberEats, Doordash, etc.) then the opt-out clause is meaningless. You can't opt out of something you're never aware of.