
Facing fury over ‘fake websites,’ Grubhub says restaurants have it wrong - prostoalex
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-grubhub-cybersquatting-20190702-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
======
simonw
> The second item in terms of service signed by restaurant owners states that
> Grubhub “may create, maintain and operate a microsite (“MS”) and obtain the
> URL for such MS on restaurant’s behalf.”

I would not have realized that "obtain the URL" meant "purchase a domain name"
if I read this.

~~~
sokoloff
What else would it mean that would not include the possibility to purchase a
domain name for this purpose?

~~~
Stratoscope
Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment...

You're a mom and pop restaurant owner. Maybe new to the country. You put all
your savings into this. Now you're making your delicious family recipes and
people are enjoying them. And paying you! And hopefully coming back for more.

You're barely making ends meet, but you hope the business will grow from word
of mouth.

Now a delivery service comes along. You know your margins will be low on those
orders after their cut, but hey, it keeps you busy and maybe you can hire
another cook.

Pop quiz! What's a "microsite", and what's a "URL"? You may have heard of one
of those things, but what is the other? Something from Microsoft?

Nonetheless, you need the business, and you sign up because you have a
customer waiting for dinner and you have to get back to cooking.

~~~
sokoloff
So you need the business, don't have time to get into the details, have a
company that takes care of those details for you, brings you an additional
volume of orders that you seek, takes the commission they earned and you
agreed to, and turns over the domain upon demand.

It sounds like a nearly ideal business arrangement to me. I'd be far more
troubled about the burying of positive reviews for people who refused to pay
for advertising than I am for someone living up to the letter (and I believe
the spirit) of the agreement with respect to microsites and domain/URLs.

~~~
hdfbdtbcdg
What is a microsite?

~~~
sokoloff
[https://www.google.com/search?q=microsite](https://www.google.com/search?q=microsite)

A small website, often targeted to a specific marketing channel or campaign.

------
shay_ker
To be honest, not a great look from Matt. It's entirely possible that a lot of
this was a misunderstanding, since microsites is literally a product feature
that GrubHub sales folks use to sell to restaurant owners (among several,
several other features that GrubHub provides).

One could imagine that this was mainly a communication error, and it could've
been fixed by updating GrubHub's sales processes.

But Matt saying that restaurants have it wrong? It's just... not a smart thing
to do. GrubHub has a symbiotic relationship with restaurant owners, and they
gain nothing from insulting restaurant owners.

~~~
wvenable
They might have not-insignificant potential revenue losses if they have to
remove these micro-sites.

~~~
munk-a
Welp, it appears they have not-insignificant PR backlash from handling this so
poorly. If a restaurant owner wants the domain for their website it'd probably
be a real PR win for grubhub to just transfer ownership.

~~~
tdhoot
The article says they hand over ownership on demand.

------
floatingatoll
GrubHub says that restaurants have it wrong by citing fine print.

Restaurants want first right of refusal over the use of their brand, not
default opt-in by a third party buried in legalspeak.

GrubHub is trying to reframe this issue in legalistic terms, to distract from
their failure to collect explicit opt-ins from every restaurant they’ve used
in this manner.

It’s unfortunate that the headline enables that change in perception by
readers.

~~~
jeremyjh
The article says they turned over the domain to the restaurant on their
request. Also it sounds like this is not just fine print; they advertise this
service as part of their offering to businesses. Finally, if you are running a
business, you cannot plead ignorance on the fine print. You need to read
contracts that you sign, or pay a professional to do so.

~~~
floatingatoll
The issue here is _not_ "were they authorized to do this?". They were. The
issue here is that their actions indicate that they cannot be trusted.

Do they require the business owner check a box "Yes" or "No" and initial next
to the clause where the business owner authorizes GrubHub to operate their
brand without further consent? No, they don't. That they do not implies to
business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub.

That they refuse to notify business owners when they register a domain using
their brand implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub.

That their response summarizes as "you signed a multi-page contract that
permitted us to do this without notification to you when we do, stop whining
about it" implies to business owners that they cannot trust GrubHub.

This is why they are so desperate to shift the framing of the argument from
"GrubHub broke trust" to "GrubHub was legally authorized to act this way".
They aren't willing to change their behavior, and so instead they simply try
to reframe the news with a press statement.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/iIu9L](http://archive.is/iIu9L)

------
JasonFruit
Short form: the restaurants didn't read the TOS, and they have been treated
with more consideration than that document requires. GrubHub has done nothing
wrong, and even went out of its way to do the right thing.

~~~
jedimastert
Go and ask the nearest 10 local-business restaurant owners what the sentence:

> “may create, maintain and operate a microsite (“MS”) and obtain the URL for
> such MS on restaurant’s behalf.”

means. I can guarantee most of them will have no idea what that means. Even if
they knew what a "microsite" was, that could mean so many different things
anyways.

And before you say "then they should have asked a lawyer," 1) yes, but there
may not be many lawyers who'd know what that meant either, and 2) there's no
way restaurant owners could get that removed from the contract, so they'd
basically have to sign anyways or remove a source of revenue.

The point being, there's a wide gulf between "it was in the TOS" and "The
owners were aware and happy with what was happening"

~~~
Traster
Here's a crazy idea - they could literally have just e-mailed grubhub asking
"Hey, I'm reading through the contract you sent me, could you elaborate on
clause X"

~~~
whatshisface
Would they have responded? I can't think of a single time when I had any
chance to negotiate a TOS.

Besides, even if they changed the onboarding process into an old-style
contract negotiation, constantly having to deal with the devil, weeding out
his sly contractual tricks, is a cost that can add up in terms of stress and
man-hours. Most people would rather just choose business partners that aren't
trying to trick them.

~~~
Traster
We're not talking about negotiating, not at all. You can absoluutely ask them
what they mean by a clause and then chose not to sign. I find it kind of funny
that people in this comment thread seem to think that Grubhub is something
unique as if Uber hasn't been pushing their drivers into poverty for years
now. Yes, the terms of the contract are likely to be onerous, that's kind of
what these rent-seeking business models are all about.

