#NNPA BlackPress

Bill Meant to Force Food Delivery Apps to Get Restaurants’ Approval First

Published

5 years ago

August 25, 2020

Jonathan Burgess co-owns Burgess Brothers with his twin brother Matthew. It is a popular American bistro-slash-barbecue restaurant and food supply company based in Sacramento. Locals treasure them for their delicious waffles; handcrafted gourmet barbecue sauce; sweet and spicy smoked sausages; among other specialties.

The African American entrepreneur says small family-owned businesses like his are tempted by what digital food delivery services might offer them: A broader customer base and online advertising on highly trafficked apps.

But that exposure comes with a crippling cost.

“There’s only like a very thin 5% profit margin for most small restaurants. It’s simple math. If you give Uber, Doordash or one of the others a nice chunk of that, it just doesn’t work out for you.”

Burgess says food delivery services should offer special rates for mom and pop shops that are lower than what they charge chain restaurants. Those corporation-owned eateries typically buy their ingredients wholesale at much lower costs and they can make up for losses on delivery fees by what they make in volume.

Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) has written a bill to address the challenges food delivery apps have posed for small restaurants like Burgess’s across California. When the chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and Latino Caucus introduced Assembly Bill 2149, the Fair Food Delivery Act in February, she did not know the COVID-19 pandemic would shutter restaurants across California, and around the world, about a month later.

Now, more than five months since the World Health Organization declared the international health crisis a global pandemic, more Americans than ever, faced with limited dining-out options, are relying on food delivery apps to purchase meals from restaurants. Grubhub, one app-based food delivery service, reports that it has more than 27 million active users and its orders have increased by over 32% over the last year.

But Gonzales says those large tech companies like Grubhub and its competitors Uber Eats, DoorDash, Postmates and others — all of them earn billions of dollars each year — take advantage of small struggling restaurants when they deliver those eateries’ food without their consent or an agreement.

“When food delivery companies take advantage of small mom and pop restaurants by delivering their food without permission, it can damage the customer’s experience and the restaurant’s reputation,” Gonzalez said, adding that food delivery companies have created “significant disruption” in the foodservice business.

If passed, AB 2149 would require all food delivery companies in California to get the “express written consent of a food facility before delivering the business’ food,” according to a statement Gonzalez’s office released.

“This bill will put the power back in the hands of small restaurant owners by ensuring they have agreed to the delivery arrangement beforehand,” Gonzalez continued.

She says food delivery services sometimes post outdated menus and provide poor service. Both things can harm a restaurant’s reputation, she argues. She also points out that the app-based companies may out-compete restaurants that have their own delivery service.

In California, there are an estimated 76,201 food and drinking establishments, according to the California Restaurant Association (CRA). The CRA supports AB 2149. Hundreds of those California restaurants are Black-owned. In the Los Angeles area alone, for instance, there are nearly 200 African American-owned restaurants, according to Infatuation, an L.A-based website.

But Courtney Jensen, who serves as the California executive director of  TechNet, a trade group that represents a number of leading tech companies says there are several problems with Gonzalez’s bill. Among them are the potential “flagrant” violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the possibility that putting restrictions on delivery services could reduce the revenue of the same restaurants that the legislation intends to help.

Under AB 2149, food delivery services would have to turn over lists of the restaurants’ customers to them.

“Some restaurants or other food facilities that may not be required to comply with CCPA would be provided consumer’s personal information,” Jensen told LA Magazine. “By providing personal information to these food facilities, which are not required to comply with CCPA, the privacy rights of California consumers are undercut, as they would have no rights to access, delete, or opt-out of sales of their personal information from these restaurants that either are not required or lack the resources to extend CCPA rights to consumers.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco based non-profit that defends civil liberties in the digital space, also opposes the bill. That organization argues that the right of food delivery service companies to operate without formal agreements with restaurants is protected by the Copyright Act, a federal law passed in 1976.

“AB 2149 is a poorly conceived attempt to hamstring food delivery platforms,” Jensen says.

But Burgess maintains that promoting a third-party restaurant online without that business’s permission or buy-in is wrong.

“It’s an intrusion. For the sake of decency and full transparency, these companies should get authorization before they advertise someone’s business,” he said. “This is not in the best interest of the restaurant.”

Michelle Snider

Associate Editor for The Post News Group. Writer, Photographer, Videographer, Copy Editor, and website editor documenting local events in the Oakland-Bay Area California area.

Posts by Michelle Snider | Website

Up Next

Californians Can Get $300 Extra a Week in Unemployment Benefits — for Now

Don't Miss

Activists Say Banning Newport, Other Flavored Cigarettes Puts Black Lives in Danger

Michelle Snider

Associate Editor for The Post News Group. Writer, Photographer, Videographer, Copy Editor, and website editor documenting local events in the Oakland-Bay Area California area.

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Fighting to Keep Blackness

BlackPressUSA NEWSWIRE — Trump supporters have introduced another bill to take down the bright yellow letters of Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C., in exchange for the name Liberty Plaza. D.C.

Published

2 weeks ago

March 7, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

As this nation observes the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, the words of President Trump reverberate. “This country will be WOKE no longer”, an emboldened Trump offered during his speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night. Since then, Alabama Congresswoman Terri Sewell posted on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter this morning that “Elon Musk and his DOGE bros have ordered GSA to sell off the site of the historic Freedom Riders Museum in Montgomery.” Her post of little words went on to say, “This is outrageous and we will not let it stand! I am demanding an immediate reversal. Our civil rights history is not for sale!” DOGE trying to sell Freedom Rider Museum

Also, in the news today, the Associated Press is reporting they have a file of names and descriptions of more than 26,000 military images flagged for removal because of connections to women, minorities, culture, or DEI. In more attempts to downplay Blackness, a word that is interchanged with woke, Trump supporters have introduced another bill to take down the bright yellow letters of Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C., in exchange for the name Liberty Plaza. D.C. Mayor Morial Bowser is allowing the name change to keep millions of federal dollars flowing there. Black Lives Matter Plaza was named in 2020 after a tense exchange between President Trump and George Floyd protesters in front of the White House. There are more reports about cuts to equity initiatives that impact HBCU students. Programs that recruited top HBCU students into the military and the pipeline for Department of Defense contracts have been canceled.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing back against this second-term Trump administration’s anti-DEI and Anti-woke message. In the wake of the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, several Congressional Black Caucus leaders are reintroducing the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina Democratic Congressman James Clyburn and Alabama Congresswoman Terry Sewell are sponsoring H.R. 14, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Six decades ago, Lewis was hit with a billy club by police as he marched for the right to vote for African Americans. The right for Black people to vote became law with the 1965 Voting Rights Act that has since been gutted, leaving the nation to vote without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. Reflecting on the late Congressman Lewis, March 1, 2020, a few months before his death, Lewis said, “We need more than ever in these times many more someones to make good trouble- to make their own dent in the wall of injustice.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Rep. Al Green is Censured by The U.S. House After Protesting Trump on Medicaid

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — His censure featured no hearing at the House Ethics Committee and his punishment was put on the floor for a vote by the Republican controlled House less than 72 hours after the infraction in question.

Published

2 weeks ago

March 6, 2025

Oakland Post

By Lauren Burke

In one of the quickest punishments of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in the modern era, Congressman Al Green (D-TX) was censured by a 224-198 vote today in the House. His censure featured no hearing at the House Ethics Committee and his punishment was put on the floor for a vote by the Republican controlled House less than 72 hours after the infraction in question. Of the last three censures of members of the U.S. House, two have been members of the Congressional Black Caucus under GOP control. In 2023, Rep. Jamal Bowman was censured.

On the night of March 4, as President Trump delivered a Joint Address to Congress, Rep. Green interrupted him twice. Rep. Green shouted, “You don’t have a mandate to cut Medicare, and you need to raise the cap on social security,” to President Trump. In another rare event, Rep. Green was escorted off the House floor by security shortly after yelling at the President by order of GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson. Over the last four years, members of Congress have yelled at President Biden during the State of the Union. Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor-Greene was joined by Republican Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-CO) in 2022 in yelling at President Biden. In 2023, Rep. Greene, Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), and Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) yelled at Biden, interrupting his speech. In 2024, wearing a red MAGA hat, a violation of the rules of the U.S. House, Greene interrupted Biden again. She was never censured for her behavior. Rep. Green voted “present” on his censure and was joined by freshman Democrat Congressman Shomari Figures of Alabama who also voted “present”.

All other members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against censuring Green. Republicans hold a four-seat advantage in the U.S. House after the death of Texas Democrat and former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner yesterday. Ten Democrats voted along with Republicans to censure Rep. Green, including Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, who is in the leadership as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “I respect them but, I would do it again,” and “it is a matter of conscience,” Rep. Green told Black Press USA’s April Ryan in an exclusive interview on March 5. After the vote, a group of Democrats sang “We Shall Overcome” in the well at the front of the House chamber. Several Republican members attempted to shout down the singing. House Speaker Mike Johnson gaveled the House out of session and into a recess. During the brief recess members moved back to their seats and out of the well of the House. Shortly after the vote to censor Rep. Green, Republican Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee quickly filed legislation to punish members who participated in the singing of “We Shall Overcome.” Earlier this year, Rep. Ogles filed legislation to allow President Donald Trump to serve a third term, which is currently unconstitutional. As the debate started, the stock market dove down over one-point hours from close. The jobs report will be made public tomorrow.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Trump Moves to Dismantle Education Department

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The department oversees programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), serving 7.5 million students. Transferring IDEA oversight to another agency, as Trump’s plan suggests, could jeopardize services and protections for disabled students.

Published

2 weeks ago

March 6, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

The Trump administration is preparing to issue an executive order directing newly confirmed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling the Department of Education. While the president lacks the authority to unilaterally shut down the agency—requiring congressional approval—McMahon has been tasked with taking “all necessary steps” to reduce its role “to the maximum extent permitted by law.” The administration justifies the move by claiming the department has spent over $1 trillion since its 1979 founding without improving student achievement. However, data from The Nation’s Report Card shows math scores have improved significantly since the 1990s, though reading levels have remained stagnant. The pandemic further widened achievement gaps, leaving many students behind.

The Education Department provides about 10% of public-school funding, primarily targeting low-income students, rural districts, and children with disabilities. A recent Data for Progress poll found that 61% of voters oppose Trump’s efforts to abolish the agency, while just 34% support it. In Washington, D.C., where student proficiency rates remain low—22% in math and 34% in English—federal funding is crucial. Serenity Brooker, an elementary education major, warned that cutting the department would worsen conditions in underfunded schools.

“D.C. testing scores aren’t very high right now, so cutting the Department of Education isn’t going to help that at all,” she told Hilltop News. A report from the Education Trust found that low-income schools in D.C. receive $2,200 less per student than wealthier districts, leading to shortages in essential classroom materials. The department oversees programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), serving 7.5 million students. Transferring IDEA oversight to another agency, as Trump’s plan suggests, could jeopardize services and protections for disabled students.

The Office for Civil Rights also plays a key role in enforcing laws that protect students from discrimination. Moving it to the Department of Justice, as proposed in Project 2025, would make it harder for families to file complaints, leaving vulnerable students with fewer protections. Federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants and loan repayment plans, could face disruption if the department is dismantled. Experts warn this could worsen the student debt crisis, pushing more borrowers into default. “With funding cuts, they don’t have the materials they need, like books or things to help with math,” Brooker said. “It makes learning less fun for them.”