7 ms·

While deplorable, is price discrimination along non-protected customer segments (“classes”) illegal?

elashri 3y ago
[removed] Edit: Seems like I misunderstood the parent usage of class to refer to the terms as a sociological term not as its US legal term. Sorry about that
- pessimizer 3y ago
  This is something that's not really worth considering unless you want to pick a fight. You just look it up and see if it is true or not. edit: Ah, "customer segments" vs. "classes"; I didn't understand the misunderstanding.
- lolpython 3y ago
  I think OP was just using the definition of "class" as in a larger group of people that could file a lawsuit. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  He's using a specific legal term in the US. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group A protected class is a group that is illegal to discriminate against in this manner, in the United States (and several other legal systems). "Phone OS" is not a protected class. Many other things are, though, such as Race, Religion, Sex, etc... Varying a bit by jurisdiction and legal system.
pessimizer 3y ago
I don't even think it's deplorable, if it's possible to charge iPhone users more, do it. They'll pay. It also doesn't matter if it's illegal; they're suing because the entire fee system may be fraudulent, and since they're hiding this alleged iPhone tax in arbitrarily named and applied fees, it's relevant. Even worse imo, if it's held to be true, Doordash will be in real existence-threatening trouble with iPhone users and will have to increase its marketing spending towards them drastically.
- pleb_nz 3y ago
  Will general door dash users even know of the suit. Not exactly plastered over the news, hackernews is the only place I've seen an air about it.
  - zamnos 3y ago
    HN isn't the source though. the two articles I can remember are sfgate.com, readership in around 30 millon/month, and ars Technica, which is a fairly popular site, though I don't have stats for them.
    - pleb_nz 3y ago
      That still doesn't sound a terrible situation for door dash considering the global reach. Not sure about sfgate, but ars would be a pretty niche group as well
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >Will general door dash users even know of the suit. Not exactly plastered over the news, hackernews is the only place I've seen an air about it. It was reported today on local TV news here in NYC (NY1), which is what got me to search HN for this discussion. And since local TV news isn't exactly geared toward the tech savvy, I'd expect this will be widely covered across US media.
    - pleb_nz 3y ago
      Be interesting to see if there is any impact. Especially globally as well.
- sharemywin 3y ago
  [flagged]
- worksonmine 3y ago
  [flagged]
larrymcp 3y ago
My same question, yeah. If you think of buying a new car, for example, the salesman will size up the customer in all sorts of ways, taking many signals into account in order to negotiate the price as high as he think he can get the customer to agree to. Perfectly legal, and it happens all the time. I don't know if this DoorDash suit named the specific area of law that they allege was violated, but I would need to understand the difference between what DoorDash is doing and my scenario of the car salesman, for example.
- s3p 3y ago
  I think it's about misleading the consumer. This has less to do with a felony violation of the law and more about whether they are liable for the way they have marketed and misled consumers. The end result is a fine, not a criminal conviction, so I think the plaintiffs have a nonzero chance of winning.
- burnished 3y ago
  Comparing things to car dealerships in a positive light seems fraught.
sp332 3y ago
I think the complaint is not about doing price discrimination, but being misleading about it. Calling an upcharge a "delivery fee" could be fraud if the customer thinks they're paying for the delivery.
horsawlarway 3y ago
This was my thought. I don't see much functional difference between this and what Disney does with their ticketing systems, or what airlines do. It's not something I'm glad companies are doing, but it's also not illegal as long as it's not a protected class. Basically A: I wish doordash wouldn't do this. B: phone OS is not a protected class because it is deemed easily changeable. If you can afford to buy the most expensive hardware as a status symbol, don't be too surprised when companies notice and scale prices accordingly.
dubcanada 3y ago
No tons of companies do this, people charge X for people from poor countries and a much higher Y for people from rich countries. People get paid less because they are from a poor country and more because they are from a rich country.

[removed] Edit: Seems like I misunderstood the parent usage of class to refer to the terms as a sociological term not as its US legal term. Sorry about that

pessimizer 3y ago
This is something that's not really worth considering unless you want to pick a fight. You just look it up and see if it is true or not. edit: Ah, "customer segments" vs. "classes"; I didn't understand the misunderstanding.
lolpython 3y ago
I think OP was just using the definition of "class" as in a larger group of people that could file a lawsuit. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action
horsawlarway 3y ago
He's using a specific legal term in the US. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group A protected class is a group that is illegal to discriminate against in this manner, in the United States (and several other legal systems). "Phone OS" is not a protected class. Many other things are, though, such as Race, Religion, Sex, etc... Varying a bit by jurisdiction and legal system.

pessimizer 3y ago

I don't even think it's deplorable, if it's possible to charge iPhone users more, do it. They'll pay. It also doesn't matter if it's illegal; they're suing because the entire fee system may be fraudulent, and since they're hiding this alleged iPhone tax in arbitrarily named and applied fees, it's relevant. Even worse imo, if it's held to be true, Doordash will be in real existence-threatening trouble with iPhone users and will have to increase its marketing spending towards them drastically.

pleb_nz 3y ago
Will general door dash users even know of the suit. Not exactly plastered over the news, hackernews is the only place I've seen an air about it.
- zamnos 3y ago
  HN isn't the source though. the two articles I can remember are sfgate.com, readership in around 30 millon/month, and ars Technica, which is a fairly popular site, though I don't have stats for them.
  - pleb_nz 3y ago
    That still doesn't sound a terrible situation for door dash considering the global reach. Not sure about sfgate, but ars would be a pretty niche group as well
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >Will general door dash users even know of the suit. Not exactly plastered over the news, hackernews is the only place I've seen an air about it. It was reported today on local TV news here in NYC (NY1), which is what got me to search HN for this discussion. And since local TV news isn't exactly geared toward the tech savvy, I'd expect this will be widely covered across US media.
  - pleb_nz 3y ago
    Be interesting to see if there is any impact. Especially globally as well.
sharemywin 3y ago
[flagged]
worksonmine 3y ago
[flagged]

larrymcp 3y ago

My same question, yeah. If you think of buying a new car, for example, the salesman will size up the customer in all sorts of ways, taking many signals into account in order to negotiate the price as high as he think he can get the customer to agree to. Perfectly legal, and it happens all the time. I don't know if this DoorDash suit named the specific area of law that they allege was violated, but I would need to understand the difference between what DoorDash is doing and my scenario of the car salesman, for example.

s3p 3y ago
I think it's about misleading the consumer. This has less to do with a felony violation of the law and more about whether they are liable for the way they have marketed and misled consumers. The end result is a fine, not a criminal conviction, so I think the plaintiffs have a nonzero chance of winning.
burnished 3y ago
Comparing things to car dealerships in a positive light seems fraught.

sp332 3y ago

I think the complaint is not about doing price discrimination, but being misleading about it. Calling an upcharge a "delivery fee" could be fraud if the customer thinks they're paying for the delivery.

horsawlarway 3y ago

This was my thought. I don't see much functional difference between this and what Disney does with their ticketing systems, or what airlines do. It's not something I'm glad companies are doing, but it's also not illegal as long as it's not a protected class. Basically A: I wish doordash wouldn't do this. B: phone OS is not a protected class because it is deemed easily changeable. If you can afford to buy the most expensive hardware as a status symbol, don't be too surprised when companies notice and scale prices accordingly.

dubcanada 3y ago

No tons of companies do this, people charge X for people from poor countries and a much higher Y for people from rich countries. People get paid less because they are from a poor country and more because they are from a rich country.