Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Delivery Platforms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to require delivery platforms to sign agreements with restaurants
Summary
Senate Bill 280 would require third-party food delivery platforms to enter formal agreements with restaurants before listing or processing orders; supporters say the change protects restaurants from misrepresentation and restores negotiations over fees and menu accuracy.
Senate Commerce Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 280, a proposal to require third-party food-delivery platforms to secure formal agreements with restaurants before offering their services.
Supporters said the bill would protect restaurants from unauthorized listings, outdated menus and surprise fees and would improve consumer protection. Mike Summers, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, told the committee the measure restores negotiating power to independent operators and previously corrected problems in the market before a sunset clause allowed the requirement to lapse.
"This bill establishes clear guidelines requiring food delivery platforms to enter into formal agreements with restaurants before offering their services," said Sen. Denise Ricciardi, District 9, introducing the bill. "By enacting Senate Bill 280, we ensure that businesses maintain control over their brand, food quality, and service standards."
Summers said the language in prior law had worked well from 2021 through 2023 but included a sunset clause that removed the requirement when it expired. He told the committee many restaurants had agreements in place but said the state risked returning to a situation where platforms could list restaurants without consent.
Summers also described a requested, narrowly focused technical change proposed by a delivery company: adding the two words "take and" to a phrase so the statute would read that a food delivery platform "shall not take and arrange" orders, language he said would avoid unintended impacts outside the restaurant context.
Senators on the committee asked about the mechanics and negotiation power of agreements, with Sen. McGill noting that the contracts typically read like end-user licensing agreements and include indemnity and fee provisions. Summers said the agreements also specify fees and other terms so restaurants are not surprised.
The committee closed the hearing on Senate Bill 280 after receiving testimony. No vote on the bill was recorded at the hearing.
The chair recessed the committee for five minutes after closing the record on the bill and then moved to other items on the agenda.
