Lawsuit Accuses DoorDash of Charging iPhone Users More For Identical Orders (arstechnica.com) 77
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against DoorDash, alleging that the company uses deceptive and fraudulent practices to charge higher delivery fees to iPhone users compared to Android users. Ars Technica reports: The lawsuit (PDF), filed May 5 in the District of Maryland, came in hot. Plaintiff Ross Hecox, in addition to his two children and a presumptive class of similarly situated customers, briefly defines DoorDash as an online marketplace with 32 million users and billions of dollars in annual revenue. "Yet, DoorDash generates its revenues not only through heavy-handed tactics that take advantage of struggling merchants and a significant immigrant driver workforce, but also through deceptive, misleading, and fraudulent practices that illegally deprive consumers of millions, if not billions, of dollars annually," the suit adds. "This lawsuit details DoorDash's illegal pricing scheme and seeks to hold DoorDash accountable for its massive fraud on consumers, including one of the most vulnerable segments of society, minor children."
Specifically, the suit claims that DoorDash misleads and defrauds customers by
- Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand, even though none of it goes to the delivery person.
- Offering an "Express" option that implies faster delivery, but then changing the wording to "Priority" in billing so it is not held to delivery times.
- Charging an "Expanded Range Delivery" fee that seems based on distance but is really based on a restaurant's subscription level and demand.
- Adding an undisclosed 99 cent "marketing fee," paid by the customer rather than the restaurant, to promote menu items that customers add to their carts.
- Obscuring minimum order amounts attached to its "zero-fee" DashPass memberships and coupon offers.
- Generally manipulating DashPass subscriptions to appear like substantial savings, when the company is "engineering" fees to seem reduced.
One of the more interesting and provocative claims is that DoorDash's fees, based in part on "other factors," continually charge iPhone users of its app more than Android users placing the same orders. The plaintiffs and their law firm conducted a few tests of DoorDash's system, using different accounts to order the same food, from the same restaurant, at almost the same exact time, delivered to the same address, with the same account type, delivery speed, and tip. [...] The plaintiffs are asking for $1 billion in damages for those who "fell prey to DoorDash's illegal pricing" over the past four years. The suit also includes allegations that DoorDash improperly allows children to enter into contract with the company without proper vetting. "The claims put forward in the amended complaint are baseless and simply without merit," said a DoorDash spokesperson in a statement. "We ensure fees are disclosed throughout the customer experience, including on each restaurant storepage and before checkout. Building this trust is essential, and it's why the majority of delivery orders on our platform are placed by return customers. We will continue to strive to make our platform work even better for customers, and will vigorously fight these allegations."
Specifically, the suit claims that DoorDash misleads and defrauds customers by
- Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand, even though none of it goes to the delivery person.
- Offering an "Express" option that implies faster delivery, but then changing the wording to "Priority" in billing so it is not held to delivery times.
- Charging an "Expanded Range Delivery" fee that seems based on distance but is really based on a restaurant's subscription level and demand.
- Adding an undisclosed 99 cent "marketing fee," paid by the customer rather than the restaurant, to promote menu items that customers add to their carts.
- Obscuring minimum order amounts attached to its "zero-fee" DashPass memberships and coupon offers.
- Generally manipulating DashPass subscriptions to appear like substantial savings, when the company is "engineering" fees to seem reduced.
One of the more interesting and provocative claims is that DoorDash's fees, based in part on "other factors," continually charge iPhone users of its app more than Android users placing the same orders. The plaintiffs and their law firm conducted a few tests of DoorDash's system, using different accounts to order the same food, from the same restaurant, at almost the same exact time, delivered to the same address, with the same account type, delivery speed, and tip. [...] The plaintiffs are asking for $1 billion in damages for those who "fell prey to DoorDash's illegal pricing" over the past four years. The suit also includes allegations that DoorDash improperly allows children to enter into contract with the company without proper vetting. "The claims put forward in the amended complaint are baseless and simply without merit," said a DoorDash spokesperson in a statement. "We ensure fees are disclosed throughout the customer experience, including on each restaurant storepage and before checkout. Building this trust is essential, and it's why the majority of delivery orders on our platform are placed by return customers. We will continue to strive to make our platform work even better for customers, and will vigorously fight these allegations."
Is this dupe week? (Score:2)
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're seeing it twice? Must be reading /. on an iPhone. :-)
[initially mistyped "iPone" (ha)]
Re: (Score:2)
Dupe. Dupe. Dupe. Dupe of URL. Dupe. Dupe.
DoorDash Sucks (Score:3)
DoorDash and literally every single one of their drivers are terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Get off your ass and go pick up your shit. Otherwise you are part of the problem.
Some of us are unable to do that (medically).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DoorDash Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand, even though none of it goes to the delivery person.
There is no legal requirement that a delivery fee must be based on distance and there is no requirement that the delivery fee must be paid to the delivery person. This is a stupid complaint.
Offering an "Express" option that implies faster delivery, but then changing the wording to "Priority" in billing so it is not held to delivery times.
Express and Priority are meaningless terms. Unless they state a specific delivery time they can deliver whenever they want. This is a stupid complaint.
Charging an "Expanded Range Delivery" fee that seems based on distance but is really based on a restaurant's subscription level and demand.
So what? "seems based on distance" is irrelevant. Unless they state specific charges based on specific distances they can charge whatever they want. This is a stupid complaint.
Adding an undisclosed 99 cent "marketing fee," paid by the customer rather than the restaurant, to promote menu items that customers add to their carts.
There is no legal requirement that a "marketing fee" must be paid by the restaurant. Yes, this is shitty behavior, but shitty behavior is not illegal. This is a stupid complaint.
Obscuring minimum order amounts attached to its "zero-fee" DashPass memberships and coupon offers.
You obviously know about it, since you are complaining about it, so it obviously wasn't all that "obscured". This is a stupid complaint.
- Generally manipulating DashPass subscriptions to appear like substantial savings, when the company is "engineering" fees to seem reduced.
Standard marketing bullshit that is done by everyone. Again, the answer is simple. Tell businesses that you won't buy from them if they use DoorDash.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, the answer is simple.
You are right. The answer is simple. Make the shitty behavior illegal and hold all companies more responsible for their marketing. Force companies to make all transactions with customers super transparent. If the company is adding line-item fees, they better have a damn good reason for them (a la how cable companies must separately detail federal based licensing fees and such).
Saying "just don't give that company money" is not valid, because it doesn't work. Not against companies like this that are already
Junk Fees (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The weirdest is contact lenses. The don't have junk fees. Just shipping and handling fees that are 5x the cost of the product which makes price comparison difficult. Fortunately, you can now use AI to order a dozen different ones and cancel all but the most expensive total.
On the reason for cancelation I have the AI give "deceptive pricing" as the reason for the cancelation. Hoping that it at least makes it into someones meeting that they should consider not charging $500 for shipping a box of contact lense
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the good thing is we can define what shitty behavior counts and what doesn't. And you are describing CIVIL lawsuits, not criminal charges against company/people in the company. I don't want more civil lawsuits; I want more criminal charges.
Re: (Score:3)
Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand, even though none of it goes to the delivery person.
Some of it goes to the delivery person: they do get paid, after all. But like all the gig drivers, I imagine they don't get paid enough. Which is why I tip.
I have DashPass so I never pay delivery fees.
(Except a very few restaurants now and then, which I assume has to do with their deal.)
Offering an "Express" option that implies faster delivery, but then changing the wording to "Priority" in billing so it is not held to delivery times.
I've tried that option a few times, and it doesn't seem to do anything significant. So I ignore it.
Charging an "Expanded Range Delivery" fee that seems based on distance but is really based on a restaurant's subscription level and demand.
I only see that on restaurants that really are far away out of the area. (It is very rare to see it.) It's not hidden in any
Re:DoorDash Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess. You were a driver for DoorDash and fucked up so many times that they "deactivated" (fired) you. And you figured out you were losing money anyway. So you hate them. Right?
I started this thread generally agreeing with rudy_wayne, but your points were good ones, and I was paying attention - until you pulled an ad hominem attack out of nowhere and started accusing OP of being a former Dasher, without any evidence or common sense to support it. It wasn't enough for you to be correct; you just had to be an asshat into the bargain to show everyone how clever you are, too.
People like you are a major reason why society is in the shape it's in today. You poison reasonable arguments. You tear down people instead of trying to build them up. You could have convinced me, but now I know your opinions aren't worth listening to, because you don't see the person you're arguing with as a person worth respecting.
You won't listen to me when I say this, but you should really do better next time.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no legal requirement that ...
Many acts that, by themselves being legal, together show an intend to mislead and defraud someone can well be ruled illegal by a court.
The examples listed in TFA, taken together, paint a pretty clear picture of a company creating false and misleading impressions about its fees.
Other countries have consumer protection laws to prevent this kind of behaviour. The US equivalent is billion dollar class-action lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree on a couple of your points. Just calling them stupid doesn't mean they aren't valid.
- The Express option displays a shorter timeframe than the standard option, implying the express option will deliver your food faster. They are telling you that if you pay extra for the express option you will get your food faster. If that's not true, then it's deceptive.
- Similarly, the expanded range delivery spot displays the distance from you to the restaurant, indicating the distance is a factor. If this is t
Re: (Score:2)
They are telling you that if you pay extra for the express option you will get your food faster. If that's not true, then it's deceptive.
That would be an actual deception that harms customers - Inducing the customer to pay more promising an additional service which is not being provided... Offering Android users and iPhone users different prices is not a deception -- it's making a different offer to different customers which is a legal common practice in business.
Similarly, the expanded range delivery spot
Re: (Score:2)
DoorDash and literally every single one of their drivers are terrible.
YMMV.
As a disabled shut-in, I use them quite often.
Some of the drivers are a little bit lame about
finding my door, but most work out fine.
Sometimes there are items missing, or other screwups. So I just either use the "Help" link
and their AI refunds me immediately, or if is
something more complicated, I call the support
phone number. And those guys refund me.
And sometimes also give me significant credits
on my account. Mostly the service works fine.
I have an iPhone, but I only place orders
from my Mac (web). I h
iPhone users are not a protected class (Score:5, Informative)
Discrimination against a protected class is illegal. However, for all other classes, as long as fraud is not involved, the billing can be arbitrary. Just like when an app was only offered on the iPhone and not on Android, or when the app cost wasn't the same, those cases weren't illegal either.
Re: (Score:1)
But...iPhone users pay more for the privilege of having a smartphone, so they SHOULD be a protected class!
Re: (Score:2)
Discrimination against a protected class is illegal. However, for all other classes, as long as fraud is not involved, the billing can be arbitrary. Just like when an app was only offered on the iPhone and not on Android, or when the app cost wasn't the same, those cases weren't illegal either.
That was my thought.
The only reason I can see that it might be a legitimate lawsuit is that the junk fee is clearly not for what it is claiming to be for. You can charge more to certain users, but to say they are being charged for delivery distance when they are being charge for platform choice is misleading and could fall afoul of anti deceptive advertising laws.If they would have labeled the junk fee "platform fee" instead of delivery distance surcharge they probably would have been fine. Which is weird.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is surely to make the companies build all their "fees" into the base price, so it is much easier to compare prices from different suppliers, like what happens in Europe.
In the UK, the three equivalent suppliers to DoorDash are Deliveroo, Über Eats, and Just Eat.
I can see at a glance from each vendor on each of the platforms what their delivery fee is. When I click through, I can see how much each item costs, and I know that the total I pay will be the cost of each item in my basket plus the
Re: (Score:2)
Well, first, you can file a lawsuit for any reason - it's a free country after all.
Second, while iPhone users are not a protected class so may not be subject to relief, you may still get something for having DoorDash admit they do price discrimination.
After all, there have been many examples of it in the past - soda vending machines whose prices rise with the temperature - if it's a cold winter day, it may sell a can for $1. If it's a spring day, it may be $1.50. And if it's in the middle of a heatwave, wel
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, tough shit iFailures. Enjoy your blue bubbles!
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. I fail to see anything illegal here, this is basic economy - extract money where it's at. When you get the premium $1200 iPhone instead of the 100$ Android knockoff, don't be surprised at a little price discrimination. It's like complaining that shopping in Beverly Hills is more expensive than somewhere in Utah.
Re: (Score:3)
This is absolutely true. Visit Amazon with different user profiles, and you will often see different prices.
The entire concept of "couponing" is based on this: more affluent people usually can't be bothered to hunt down coupons. This allows to you charge more affluent people more for the same product.
Sorry, guys, it's marketing 101...
Re:iPhone users are not a protected class - so? (Score:2)
Don't need to be for a lawsuit. It not the government prosecuting a case. Civil law involves proving that a party was "wronged" and asking a judge or jury for compensation. Example: slander or liable -- someone feels their reputation was impugned, so they sue, asking for compensation. No law needs to be violated.
Re: (Score:3)
"as long as fraud is not involved"
So you concede your post is off-topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could even have apps with different names for the same service offering different prices. :P
E.g. Dating Light and Dating Hardcore
Not illegal (Score:2)
There's nothing illegal about this; get bent.
Re: (Score:2)
From OP:
>The plaintiffs are asking for $1 billion in damages for those who "fell prey to DoorDash's illegal pricing" over the past four years.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the basis for their claim, yes. And it's a direct quote, yes.
Does it make it illegal by itself? No. But that is the central claim.
Re: Not illegal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think there might be, but even assuming you're right, you're happy to have a country where people can get ripped off and the perps get away with it?
Dupe. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
My Android gets more dupes, I'm suing something!
Re: your mom (Score:1)
Nickel and Dime (Score:2)
To the rest of us, these are nouns.
But to some people who run these companies, they are verbs. Verbs that matter. Verbs that resonate! Verbs to live by!! Verbs that are the wellspiring of life!!!
How is this iPhone specific? (Score:2)
- Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand, even though none of it goes to the delivery person.
Doesn't matter how Doordash pays their employees. This seems fine.
- Offering an "Express" option that implies faster delivery, but then changing the wording to "Priority" in billing so it is not held to delivery times.
Does the word "express" really provide an SLA?
- Charging an "Expanded Range Delivery" fee that seems based on distance but is really based on a restaurant's subscription level and demand.
Seems reasonable to charge extra for high-demand areas. Is the wording really a problem?
- Adding an undisclosed 99 cent "marketing fee," paid by the customer rather than the restaurant, to promote menu items that customers add to their carts.
Okay, that one seems like a problem.
- Obscuring minimum order amounts attached to its "zero-fee" DashPass memberships and coupon offers.
Isn't this fairly common standard practice? There's usually fine print to protect against abuse.
- Generally manipulating DashPass subscriptions to appear like substantial savings, when the company is "engineering" fees to seem reduced.
Unless they're actually lying, this seems like common standard practice. Where in that list is the claim it's specific to iPhone users?
some of this is nonsense (Score:2)
I kinda hate all these exploitive gig companies.
BUT....
Making its "Delivery Fee" seem related to distance or demand,even though none of it goes to the delivery person.
This complaint is obviously from a disgruntled
DoorDash driver. It costs money to run the company, including paying the drivers. DoorDash charges customers various fees, and that's where the money comes from. Some of that "Delivery Fee" goes to the driver.
No representation is made that the "Delivery Fee" all goes to the driver. I certainly never inferred that. But perhaps some customers do think that though, and so that is their reason for not tipping th
I'm ok with charging an Apple User Idiot tax. (Score:1)
They can be separated from their money, maybe less Apple devices will be constructed to pillage people.
guilty (Score:2)
throughout the customer experience
Yepp, they're guilty. This kind of 1984 marketing speech shows up when clear words would show the truth you want to hide.
Or when you let marketing run your company. Which in itself should be a crime.
Demand simpler pricing (Score:3)
I'm amazed at how people from the US just accept arbitrary "fees".
You should demand up front "this is what you'll end up paying" pricing everywhere.
The free market can only work well of pricing information is transparent.
Re: Demand simpler pricing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The equivalent android would be just as expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is difficult to find equivalents, when both devices run different OSes.
You probably can not even find two models that have a similar camera.
Bottom line I hate my current iPhone SE ... the OS is terrible. But I hate my current Samsung Galaxy more: because the OS is even worse.
This is science! (Score:2)
Caveat...conspicuous consumers? (Score:2)
I mean, here you have a clear population of conspicuous consumers, who demonstrate Veblen-style that they are willing to pay exorbitant additional fees for the exact same thing everyone else has.
If they're intellectually consistent, it would seem that they should *want* it to be known that they pay more to doordash than everyone else.
Just make it super obvious, like whenever an apple user pays a doordash, it makes an audibly loud "KA-CHING!" and they might be fine with it?
Because of apple? (Score:1)