Nevada bill targets delivery apps over ‘ghost kitchens’; restaurants press for verification and stronger penalties

Assemblymember Selena Torres Fawcett, sponsor of Assembly Bill 116, told the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor that the bill is intended to hold food delivery platforms accountable for listings that misrepresent origin, quality or licensing of food sold through their apps.

Torres Fawcett said some delivery‑only operations, often called ghost kitchens or virtual brands, appear on apps without a storefront or with names that mimic established restaurants. She said platforms must have “a responsibility of vetting the businesses on their platforms,” describing consumer safety and unfair competition concerns when a virtual brand uses another restaurant’s name or when a vendor lacks a health permit.

Restaurant owners testified with specific incidents. Christina Martin of Manitza’s Pizza told the committee she repeatedly ordered food listed under her restaurant’s name on Uber and watched drivers pick up items that were not prepared by her business; she said the substitute operator had poor health inspection records. James Trees, chef‑owner of Esther’s Kitchen, said an unaffiliated operator used his logo and images, offered items he does not serve and drew 1‑star reviews that harmed his reputation. "They were using my platform and my brand to siphon off business," Trees said.

Supporters — including the Nevada Restaurant Association and individual owners — urged the committee to require platforms to verify that a listed business holds the appropriate local business license and health permit. Some speakers proposed misdemeanor penalties and stronger fines; those backing the sponsor said small fines (for example, an amendment Uber proposed capping fines at $500) would not deter large platforms.

Platform representatives said they share the public‑safety interest but urged narrower language and operational clarity. AJ Dila for Uber said the company supports the intent to ensure legitimacy and safety but offered amendments to clarify licensing, jurisdiction and penalty language. Mark Fiorentino, counsel for DoorDash, said platforms invest in anti‑fraud measures and want to work with the sponsor to produce workable verification procedures. Kemfer Crowell, representing DoorDash, and Griffin Company for Uber both requested more detail about verification cadence, what constitutes a valid permit, and how platforms would be held liable for suspended or fraudulent permits.

Committee questions focused on scope (which businesses qualify as "food dispensing establishments"), what checks are sufficient, and penalty levels. Committee counsel noted “immediate consumption” is the usual frame for defining a food dispensing establishment and that meal‑prep or grocery‑style services may fall outside that definition.

The committee did not take a vote; the sponsor said she expected continued negotiations and called for stronger enforcement than platform‑proposed amendments. Speaker Yeager asked platform counsel to provide a written description of current platform practices for preventing and responding to fraudulent listings.

Ending: The hearing highlighted a split between restaurateurs seeking verification and stronger penalties and platform representatives seeking narrower statutory language and operational detail; the sponsor and interested companies agreed to continue talks.