Australia's competition watchdog investigates UberEat's alleged "unfair" contracts that take a massive bite of small businesses' profits and put responsibility for risky delivery drivers back in the restaurants.
Earlier this month, Sydney civilian Josh Arthurs said that he was several bands with the "real evil company" after his Burghers of the Josh Chain saw his average rating rate plummeted as a result of unfortunate UberEats traffic users.
Echoing a similar complaint from Sydney's Petty Cash Cafe Arthurs contracted the difficult contractual conditions under which UberEats takes 35%. cut off while restaurants require 50% of refunds, even if the driver is guilty of cold or spoiled food. 19659002] He said the drivers were not trained in food handling and customer service and "anyone Joe from the street can participate" and the problem worsened because the driver did not pay much so they would take a job / food order and often stop in and get another one along the way, which causes customers to get cold food. "
"As a customer and a food operational partner of this fascist company I have seen first hand, how bad [an] it is involved for both parties," he wrote in a scouring Facebook post.
Talked to ABC earlier this week UberEat's general cousin for Australia and New Zealand, Jodie Auster, admitted errors were made. "When we deliver on this scale, some orders do not get there in less than 30 minutes, some orders do not come there as they were originally calculated," she said.
According to the contract, a copy of which was published by ABC on Monday UberEat's restaurants require "to acknowledge and accept that Uber is a technology service provider" and that it does not "deliver delivery or logistics services."  The app instead allows restaurants to "connect with independent providers of delivery services" that "must operate under your private licensing rights and control as your agent and not employee."
"For the sake of clarity … through the services provided by the Delivery Partners, you are responsible for the delivery of meals and you maintain possession, control and care of the meals at any time," read the contracts.
"You maintain the title for all meal inventory until each meal is delivered to your customer. You are responsible for the cost of all substandard meals. You are responsible for the costs of repayment to your customers in the event that such customers wish to repay for unsatisfactory meals. "
According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, these terms may be unfair.
"ACCC continues to be concerned that third party service providers can put unreasonable conditions on small businesses," says a spokeswoman in a statement.
"ACCC will examine Uber's contracts with industry and consumers for potential breaches of the Australian Consumer Act. ACCC will also consider any unjustified opinions to determine whether there is misleading or misleading behavior.
" ACCC would have concerns, where companies impose conditions impose conditions that are unilateral. Certain terms and conditions may be legally unfair within the definition of a prohibition of unfair contract period under Australian Consumer Law.
"These agreements can also affect effective competition in the food supply market."
A spokesman from UberEats said: "We work actively together and work with ACCC to help their investigation. Adhering to Australian legislation is important for us and we will work with ACCC to ensure this."