Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Platform Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel backs restoring requirement that food‑delivery platforms have restaurant agreements
Summary
Senate Bill 280 would re‑establish a pre‑existing requirement that third‑party delivery platforms must have an agreement with restaurants before offering delivery of that restaurant’s food. Restaurant operators told the committee the earlier rule reduced misrepresentation and consumer confusion and should be reinstated after it lapsed.
Senate Bill 280 would reinstate a pre‑existing New Hampshire rule requiring third‑party delivery platforms to have a written agreement with restaurants before offering delivery service from that restaurant.
Max Taylor, legislative aide to Senator Ricciardi, said the requirement had been in force for two years and helped reduce incidents in which platforms listed restaurants without consent. "For 2 years, this requirement was a part of New Hampshire law and helped significantly reduce the problems restaurants faced when third‑party platforms listed them without consent," Taylor said.
Mike Summers of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association told the committee restaurants began calling the association with complaints after the language sunsetted. "When we had this in place, it was nice and smooth," Summers said. He described problems such as platforms posting outdated menus, taking orders without restaurant knowledge and delaying refunds. The industry representative said the agreement framework allowed restaurants to control use of their trademarks and ensure menu accuracy.
Lawmakers asked how the requirement would be monitored and enforced. Summers said enforcement was largely self‑policed by restaurants, which would issue cease‑and‑desist letters or pursue contractual remedies if platforms misrepresented them. Representative Sri asked whether the legislation should specify contract lengths or renewal terms; Summers said those are commercial contract matters and the statute should require only that an agreement exist.
Committee members raised consumer complaints about order fulfillment and refunds; a lawmaker described a five‑hour nondelivery incident that was resolved only after the customer contacted the restaurant directly. Supporters said the restored requirement would protect consumers and restaurants by making platform relationships explicit.
No committee vote was held. The bill’s sponsors and industry representatives said they expect to work with staff on precise statutory language before further committee consideration.
