Connect with us

Business

L.A. County accuses Grubhub of 'bait-and-switch' with last-minute fees

Published

on

L.A. County accuses Grubhub of 'bait-and-switch' with last-minute fees

The price of the turkey on rye half-sandwich from Langer’s Delicatessen-Restaurant in Los Angeles, purchased through the delivery app Grubhub, starts around $17.

But at checkout, the costs mount. With additional fees and sales tax, the cost of a sandwich delivery can hit over $26.00. Plus tip.

L.A. County says it amounts to an illegal “bait-and-switch.”

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday against Grubhub, county lawyers argue the food delivery company has repeatedly flouted a state law barring false advertising by promoting meals at a cheaper price than what customers see at the checkout page.

“Grubhub has built this vast marketplace through practices that mislead consumers and restaurants and put the squeeze on the company’s delivery drivers,” the lawsuit says. “Multiple aspects of Grubhub’s business — and every transaction for food delivery — are suffused with deception.”

Advertisement

A Grubhub spokesperson said in a statement the company plans to “aggressively defend” itself in court.

“We’ve sought to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Los Angeles County Counsel’s office to explain our business and identify any areas for improvement,” a company spokesperson wrote. “We are disappointed they have moved forward with this lawsuit because our practices have always complied with applicable law, and in any event, many of the allegations are incorrect or have been discontinued.”

The lawsuit refers to a Grubhub webpage with a banner that says customers can “order online for free” at Los Angeles restaurants near them. In reality, the lawsuit says, they cannot.

Grubhub said it is working on removing the language “from all existing materials.”

“This lawsuit sends a clear message: Los Angeles County will not tolerate businesses that deceive consumers, take advantage of restaurants, and exploit the drivers who work hard to provide a valued service,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, the board chair, in a statement.

Advertisement

It’s the latest government action aimed at preventing companies from hitting consumers with surprise charges. A new state law goes into effect this summer prohibiting last-minute “junk fees” across a long list of businesses, including delivery apps. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who co-sponsored the measure, has promised “the price Californians see will be the price they pay.”

The attorney general’s office has said that once the law goes into effect, delivery apps cannot tack on miscellaneous fees at the end of the transaction.

The county’s lawsuit argues the status quo hurts not only Grubhub’s customers, but also the drivers and restaurants who serve them.

According to the lawsuit, restaurants signing up for Grubhub were not properly warned that they would have to refund money to dissatisfied customers even if the restaurants didn’t believe they had made a mistake with the order. Restaurants are also at a disadvantage if they don’t pay the company extra marketing fees, the county alleged.

Grubhub gives more search prominence to restaurants that pay more in marketing fees, though most customers likely don’t realize this, the suit alleges. Instead, customers may believe the restaurants they’re seeing higher in the search ranking are the closest or the most popular.

Advertisement

“These practices inflict financial harm on L.A. County’s residents, restaurants and workers and are unacceptable while so many of them struggle to make ends meet,” Rafael Carbajal, director of the county’s Department of Consumer and Business Affairs, said in a statement.

Grubhub came under fire from its California delivery drivers in 2020 after the company rolled out a new charge — called the driver benefits fee — to help cover the costs that came under Proposition 22, a voter-approved ballot measure that guaranteed delivery drivers who clock a certain number of hours a healthcare stipend, among other benefits.

As part of the rollout, the company defaulted to no tip. Drivers said their earnings were slashed as a result.

The lawsuit alleges the way Grubhub explains the driver benefits fee continues to deter customers from tipping.

Grubhub explains the fee to consumers as helping guarantee “minimum wage and healthcare benefits for our drivers so they don’t have to depend on tips,” the lawsuit says. In reality, many drivers don’t qualify for the stipend and are fully dependent on tips, the county alleges.

Advertisement

Grubhub said the company has worked to make it easier for restaurants to dispute refunds and plans to clarify the benefits drivers receive as a result of Proposition 22. It also said marketing fees only affect the searches customers see in “certain, limited circumstances.”

In 2022, Grubhub settled a similar suit with Washington, D.C., for $3.5 million after the district’s attorney general accused the company of manipulating customers with “hidden fees.” Under the settlement, Washington received $800,000, and $2.7 million went back into the accounts of Grubhub customers.

Business

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Published

on

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison made his case directly to theater owners Thursday, pledging to release a minimum of 30 films a year from the combined Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery company during a speech at the CinemaCon trade convention in Las Vegas.

“I wanted to look every single one of you in the eye and give you my word,” Ellison said in a brief on-stage speech, adding that Paramount has already nearly doubled its film lineup for this year with 15 planned releases, up from eight in 2025.

He also said all films will remain in theaters exclusively for 45 days, starting Thursday. Films will then go to streaming platforms in 90 days. The amount of time that films stay in theaters — known as windowing — has been a controversial topic for theater owners, as some studios reduced that period during the pandemic. Theater operators have said the shortened window has trained audiences to wait to watch films at home and cuts into theater revenues.

“I have dedicated the last 20 years of my life to elevating and preserving film,” said Ellison, clad in a dark jacket and shirt with blue jeans. “And at Paramount, we want to tell even more great stories on the big screen — stories that make people think, laugh, dream, wonder and feel — and we want to share them with as broad an audience as possible.”

Ellison’s CinemaCon appearance comes as more than 1,000 Hollywood actors and creatives have signed a letter opposing Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Supporters of the letter have said the deal would reduce competition in the industry and “further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape.”

Advertisement

Some theater operators have also questioned whether the combined company could achieve its goal of releasing 30 films a year, particularly after the cost cuts that are expected after the merger closes.

“People can speculate all they want — but I am standing here today telling you personally that you can count on our complete commitment,” Ellison said. “And we’ll show you we mean it.”

The speech came after a star-studded video directed by “Wicked: For Good” director Jon M. Chu that was shot on the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue and showcased directors and actors including Issa Rae, Will Smith, Chris Pratt, James Cameron and Timothée Chalamet that are working with the company.

The video closed with “Top Gun” actor Tom Cruise perched atop the Paramount water tower.

“As you saw, the Paramount lot is alive again,” Ellison said after the video. “And we could not be more excited.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Published

on

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

new video loaded: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Ben Casselman, our chief economics correspondent, explains why wages are not keeping up with inflation and what that means for American workers and the economy.

By Ben Casselman, Nour Idriss, Sutton Raphael and Stephanie Swart

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Published

on

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.

On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.

During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.

The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.

The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.

Advertisement

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”

Advertisement

The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.

Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.

Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.

On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.

Advertisement

The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.

Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.

New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.

Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.

On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.

Advertisement

Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending