As I answered to another poster, I believe the keyword here is "take orders".
You can't take orders on behalf of others, but you can freely arrange for someone in an app to "make an order" for you and then fetch the meal. That's my interpretation.
Of course it could/should be better worded, though.
EDIT: Also, someone also mentioned that courier apps are not "food delivery platforms", so the first few words of the paragraph you quoted already excludes them.
This law does not say that at all. It's completely silent on whether the platform can take orders. It prohibits a single specific action, and that action is arranging for the delivery of an order.
> you can freely arrange for someone in an app to "make an order" for you and then fetch the meal.
You can arrange for them to make an order if you want to. That's allowed. But "fetching" sure sounds to me like they are delivering the order. They can't deliver it unless they have the specific authorization from the restaurant.
The text that has been quoted all over this thread does say "to take orders and deliver meals". Sure it could be better worded, but it seems that the intent here is quite clear: to stop the practice that was being done by DoorDash/Postmates.
Look at how the law is formulated: "A food delivery platform shall not X without Y."
X is the action the law allows or prohibits.
Y decides whether the action is allowed or not.
If "authorization to take orders and deliver meals" exists, then they can deliver. If "authorization to take orders and deliver meals" does not exist, then they cannot deliver.
"take orders" does not appear in the law anywhere else. It's only in the phrase "authorization to take orders", and in that context the law is only checking if that authorization exists. This particular law does not say when taking orders is allowed or prohibited. This law does not care if a platform is taking orders. It cares about whether the platform delivers, and it cares about whether the platform has "authorization to take orders and deliver meals".
-
Edit: Pretend for a second the law said "A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to own puppies and deliver meals prepared by the food facility."
Would that law have any effect on whether the food delivery platform can own puppies? Nah. The restaurant has to say "you are allowed to own puppies" before the platform can deliver, but that law is not imbuing the puppy clause with any other power. It neither allows nor disallows actual puppy ownership.
-
So my main point is not that a platform should get cheeky by trying to take orders but not deliver, or something.
It's that even if they're not taking orders, this law blocks them from delivering. If they don't have the authorization, they can't deliver, end of story. The restaurant didn't say they can have a puppy, so they can't deliver, and it doesn't matter whether there actually is a puppy.
Like I already said, it could be better worded, but, to me, its intent seems to be quite clear. You make good points, but I still have a different interpretation.
Uber Eats or Uber Taxi? Uber Eats doesn't engage in the practices this law is trying to curb since they already have agreements in place with the restaurants (AFAIK), so you won't have to phone up anyone if you use Uber Eats.
If you're taking about Uber the Taxi app, or some courier service, then this law doesn't apply to them since they're not "food delivery platforms", and you can just ask them to order on your behalf without phoning anyone.
EDIT: Btw I'm not making any argument in favour or against the law, I'm just doing my best and trying to interpret it.
The general agreement here is that the law was made because Doordash/Postmates were impersonating restaurants without authorization from them and taking orders in their behalf, so it's not exactly similar to your shoes examples.
Most people find the impersonation and lack of transparent unreasonable. Whether the law is the best tool to fix it or whether it will have side effects is what's in debate, but the main intention of the law seems pretty clear to everyone.
You can't take orders on behalf of others, but you can freely arrange for someone in an app to "make an order" for you and then fetch the meal. That's my interpretation.
Of course it could/should be better worded, though.
EDIT: Also, someone also mentioned that courier apps are not "food delivery platforms", so the first few words of the paragraph you quoted already excludes them.