像grubhub，ubereats等中间食物送餐服务的快速上升已经伴随着关于如何谈论的谈话 -无论是- 餐馆从这些服务中受益。该应用程序倾向于争辩说，通过在送货伞下的每一个本地建立，消费者和餐馆都受益。
然而，一种纽约邮政调查进入GrubHub和费城之间的持续诉讼Tiffin Indian Cuisine.所有者纳米拉纳里拉州提请注意据称科技公司的嫌疑人实践。具体而言，这套西装声称GrubHub多年来一直是通过应用程序路由的电话呼叫的账单，是否呼叫导致实际顺序。Grubhub说它只在下订单时收取餐厅的佣金，但是邮政与多个业主发表谈话，他说他们已经向数千美元带来了呼叫，以便没有订单。诉讼声称这种做法普遍存在。
Narula的指控源于GrubHub通过自己的电话号码路由外部电话的做法，而不是直接将食客连接到餐厅本身：
根据诉讼和餐厅来源的说法，隐藏的费用是Grubhub为其合同的餐馆设立全新的电话号码的实践。它在其网站和应用程序上显示其电话号码而不是餐厅的实际数字。
依赖GRUBHUB的数字的客户可能永远不会知道差异，因为GRUBHUB会自动将其呼叫转发给餐馆，然后填写订单。
Restaurateursurs说，非订单的费用将GRUBHUB正常佣金加倍GRUBHUB正常佣金为最终条例草案的15％至20％。
The basis of the lawsuit alleges that Grubhub has been shaving extra commissions through a “statistical model” that determines whether or not a call resulted in a placed order: “[it] claims Grubhub’s statistical model is a mere egg timer—one that charges for any call above 45 seconds.” Grubhub, for its part, replied with a public statement: “We believe the Tiffin case is without merit and dispute the claims.” Tiffin’s website now has a full-screen landing page urging customers to order delivery directly from the restaurant.
Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out—it’s currently pursuing class-action status so it can loop in other restaurants—it offers a crucial reminder that meal order apps are still new technology, and like many tech innovations, are still governed with less oversight than some might hope. As business moves ever further into digital space, standards and practices will have to evolve alongside it.
