What’s behind those DoorDash messages on a Miami-Dade ordinance? A big fight on data
A high-stakes battle over delivery apps, ghost kitchens and data privacy is quietly unfolding in Miami-Dade County, and local DoorDash customers are getting hints of the fight to the come.
Users of the digital delivery app in Miami-Dade have been getting messages warning of a proposed county ordinance “that would require platforms like DoorDash to share personal identifying information about customers like you each time you place an order.”
READ MORE: ‘Please add a croqueta to my steak sandwich’: Miami gets weird on Uber Eats
At issue is a proposal to have Miami-Dade adopt what could be the strictest data-sharing and price-transparency rules in the county for DoorDash, Uber Eats and other delivery services that surged in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The legislation up for a committee hearing on Sept. 11 would require apps to break down what portion of a customer’s payment goes to the restaurant, the delivery company and the driver. That includes how much of a tip a driver actually receives.
“This is to protect consumers,” said Commissioner Kionne McGhee, the ordinance sponsor.
Seeking lots of consumer info
App companies also would need to turn over information they have about the people ordering the food, including address, phone number and whether it’s a new or repeat customer. That requirement is pitched as a way to help local restaurants know who is purchasing their food.
“This is basic information. This is not credit card information. This is not Social Security numbers,” said Joe Reinstein, executive director of the Digital Restaurant Association, the trade group lobbying for the Miami-Dade legislation. “It’s helpful if the restaurant can recognize who you are from your order and make sure they get everything right.”
Reinstein said the Miami-Dade proposal would enact the strictest transparency rules in the country for delivery apps, though similar legislation is tied up in a court challenge in New York City.
Companies behind the delivery apps are condemning the rules as forcing the release of digital personal information without any benefit to consumers. The legislation is also opposed by the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association.
“We are working to develop a solution that ensures restaurants are able to communicate with and respond meaningfully to their customers at every stage of the transaction,” said Samantha Padgett, vice president for government relations for the hospitality industry trade group. “We appreciate the county’s desire to protect its businesses. However, we do not feel that the proposal before the county is in the best interests of consumers or restaurants.”
Uber and its allies lobbying against the proposal also see it as a way to bolster a rival to the local restaurants the ordinance is supposed to be helping.
Who’s behind this move?
As first reported by the Financial Times, the Digital Restaurant Association has ties to a company focused on ghost kitchens launched by former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick.
Ghost kitchens set up cooking operations in parking lots and other low-cost spots to sell food through delivery or pickup.
Kalanick’s City Storage Systems is the parent company of Cloud Kitchens, which operates ghost kitchens in Miami and across the country.
Another subsidiary of City Storage Systems is Otter, a platform that the company sells to brick-and-mortar restaurants to manage orders from Door Dash, GrubHub and other delivery apps.
The Financial Times reported in 2022 that Otter head Guido Gabrielli was listed as a Digital Restaurant Association board member last year, and that the advocacy group was formed by people from a lobbying firm working for City Storage, Tusk Holdings.
Javier Correoso, the Uber spokesperson, said the data-sharing requirement would give Otter access to local restaurants’ delivery customers — data that would be valuable for fledgling ghost kitchens trying to build followings.
“This is an attempt to capture unprecedented swaths of Floridians’ personal data so that third-party aggregators can sell it and monetize it without their consent,” he said. “This legislation is a clear violation of consumer privacy and an obvious attempt to utilize local government as a weapon to capture customer data for their own benefit.”
Reinstein, the director of the Digital Restaurant group, lambasted the idea that the legislation could be designed to help ghost kitchens.
“We represent brick-and-mortar restaurants,” he said. “This is just the big tech platforms trying to bully their way into continuing their abusive practices with restaurants.”
