Nevada committee hears bill to hold delivery platforms accountable for 'imposter' restaurant listings

Assemblymember Torres Foster introduced Assembly Bill 116 on May 1 before the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor in Carson City, asking the committee to require food-delivery platforms to verify that listed restaurants hold a valid local business permit and to remove listings that are shown to be false.

Supporters said the measure is targeted at so-called “ghost” or “imposter” restaurants on apps such as Uber Eats, DoorDash and Grubhub that use another restaurant’s name and photos to take orders.

"These ghost kitchens are straying a little too far off the trail," Assemblymember Torres Foster told the committee. She said consumers may believe they are ordering from an existing restaurant when the food instead comes from an unrelated operator that may not hold a health permit or business license.

A restaurateur who testified described his experience. "I found that Uber Eats was allowing an odd pizza restaurant on Eastern to use my branding, my pictures from my website," James Trees, owner of Esther's Kitchen, said. Trees said his restaurant does not do delivery but began seeing negative Yelp and Google reviews after customers ordered from a fake listing and received food of noticeably lower quality.

The bill would prohibit a food-delivery service platform from facilitating an online order involving a restaurant unless the operator has a permit required by the local health authority or an authorized business license. Under the draft presented to the committee, an establishment that violates the provision or provides false information to the platform would be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100 for each order fulfilled. If a platform receives "specific verifiable information" that an establishment lacks a required permit or has provided false or misleading information, the platform must remove the establishment from the platform no later than 10 days after receiving that information. If it fails to do so, the platform could be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for each day the establishment remains listed after the tenth day.

Proponents said the proposal aims to protect consumers and restaurants that build reputations by doing business openly and to give platforms a clear notice-and-removal timeline. "This piece of legislation is attempting to ensure that we are properly penalizing imposter restaurants, as well as platform providers that leave these restaurants on their sites," Assemblymember Torres Foster said.

Committee members pressed supporters on enforcement and remedies for harmed restaurants. Tom Roberts of Meridian Nevada, representing the Nevada Justice Association in the hearing, said the bill’s civil penalties are civil in nature and could be used in actions to compensate affected restaurants. Roberts also confirmed the bill’s verification standard focuses on a business license rather than solely on health-district permits, to make verification more practical for platforms.

Representatives of at least one platform filed support on the record; Sam Anastasatos of the law firm Kemper Kroll testified on behalf of DoorDash and said DoorDash supported the bill and appreciated working with the sponsor on language.

No formal vote or final action on AB116 was recorded at the hearing. The committee moved on after receiving testimony in support; no callers registered opposition or neutral testimony during the public comment segment recorded on the hearing record.

The hearing transcript shows testimony and questions from several senators, including Senator Schreiber and Senator Steinbeck, who described the conduct as deceptive and asked about existing criminal remedies for fraud. Supporters told the committee that criminal charges for obtaining money under false pretenses may be possible in some cases but that the bill fills a statutory gap by assigning specific civil accountability to platforms.

The bill will return to the committee record for further consideration; the hearing closed without a recorded committee motion to advance or defeat the bill.

Votes at the hearing: none recorded.