GrubHub Charged More Than 300 Thousand US Restaurants For Phone Calls That Did Not Even Involve Any Orders – Class Action Lawsuit
A restaurant owner is issuing food delivery service company GrubHub to court for its allegedly illegal telephone call monitoring practices that ended up negatively impacting the finances of thousands of food establishments across the country.
The GrubHub Restaurant Telephone Orders Commission Class Action Lawsuit involves the claims that the food delivery service is charging fees for telephone calls that run through its service even though there were no customer orders placed as the end result of the call.
Plaintiff Nevada-based restaurant company Zay Toon Inc. argued that GrubHub was taking its commissions on all customer calls of more than 45 seconds even though a majority of them did not result in an order to the restaurant.
In fact, the complainant added that GrubHub has done this scheme in nine years, affecting more than three hundred thousand restaurants and other dining establishments in the country.
In addition to that, the company has negatively impacted these companies’ financial capabilities by withholding such payments owed to establishment owners.
The class action detailed GrubHub’s alleged modus operandi. The company makes two separate lists of phone numbers of establishments; one uploaded and is live in the restaurant’s own site while the other goes to GrubHub’s own site.
This is done without the restaurant owner’s consent and prior knowledge.
Most of the time, online search results show GrubHub’s listed phone number to which restaurant-goers always mostly save as a contact detail on their mobile phones.
When a customer makes a call using GrubHub’s listed phone number, the call is rerouted to the restaurant to answer and handle.
The food delivery service company has no idea of how the call goes and does not monitor the contents of these calls.
They just assume that if a phone call made is longer than 45 seconds, an order was made, ergo resulting in a commission inappropriately charged to the restaurant.
This commission charge appears just minutes after a call was made.
Zay Toon Inc. shared that they were initially under contract with a company called Eat24.com starting in 2011.
The contract between the two did not include a stipulation about commissions for orders made over the phone and recorded by staff members.
When GrubHub acquired Eat24.com in 2017, it decided to honor the previous contract it has with Zay Toon Inc. instead of entering into a new one now that the company is under GrubHub’s helm.
Zay Toon Inc. also shared that they only found out about GrubHub’s telephone commission scheme in 2018 when a separate class action lawsuit was filed against the food delivery company.
It was reported that the company has taken great lengths to hide their telephone commission scheme to restaurants and food establishments.
Once they found out, they reportedly tried out dialing GrubHub’s listed number and found out the truth after the company.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the GrubHub Restaurant Telephone Orders Commission Class Action Lawsuit claims that GrubHub has done acts constituting to breach of contract and conversion.
It is also accusing the company of violating different laws in Nevada and Illinois, namely the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive Business Practices Act, respectively.
Editor’s Note on GrubHub Restaurant Telephone Orders Commission Class Action Lawsuit:
This news features the latest class action lawsuit to hit GrubHub.
This time, the food delivery service company is accused of allegedly illegally charging its partner restaurant establishments of commission fees involving calls that did not even result in a customer order.
What are your thoughts on this piece? Please send us a message by clicking the ‘Contact Us’ button below! We’d love to hear back from you.
Suggested Article: McDonald’s Fake Vanilla Lawsuit Dismissed…