Grubhub Not Buying Phila. Restaurant's Proposed Class Action Lawsuit
Tiffin Indian Cuisine restaurants filed a proposed class action, contending that Grubhub was withholding millions from restaurants across the country because it charged commissions on "sham" phone calls that did not result in takeout orders.
January 29, 2019 at 03:19 PM
3 minute read
Online ordering service Grubhub is pushing back on a proposed nationwide class action spearheaded by a Philadelphia restaurant chain that claims the popular digital service is collecting undeserved commissions.
Last month, Tiffin Indian Cuisine restaurants filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, contending that Grubhub was withholding millions from restaurants across the country because it charged commissions on “sham” phone calls that did not result in takeout orders. The online ordering company, however, shot back in court papers recently, saying Tiffin's lawsuit failed to raise a claim.
“The face of the complaint makes this much clear. … There has been no 'deception' on Grubhub's part in this matter,” Pittsburgh-based Jones Day attorney Rebekah Byers Kcehowski said as part of a motion to dismiss. “Grubhub has performed in accordance with the contracts at all times.”
Dilworth Paxson attorney Catherine Pratsinakis, acting on behalf of the two Tiffin restaurants that are lead plaintiffs in the case, filed the proposed class action in late December. The complaint alleged that Grubhub's practices had deprived “tens of millions” of dollars in revenue from more than 80,000 restaurants.
According to the complaint, the online ordering company has been charging commissions on phone calls, regardless of whether they resulted in an order being placed for takeout. The complaint said the company does this by issuing new phone numbers for restaurants that appear on Grubhub's sites, and, when dialed, the company redirects the call to the intended restaurant and records the calls.
The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose these practices, misrepresented how it charges commissions, and failed to undertake, or disclose, any of the methods by which it analyses the calls to determine which result in orders. Grubhub is a Chicago company, so Tiffin also alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which allows for treble damages.
“Grubhub's actions, and failure to act when required, have caused plaintiffs and tens of thousands of other restaurants across the country to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost profits in the tens of millions of dollars over the past seven years,” Tiffin said in the complaint.
In its response filed late last week, Grubhub asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that it had disclosed the commission to Tiffin in monthly states, online ledgers, public disclosures, and in its contract with one of the restaurants.
Grubhub also noted that roughly 15 percent of Tiffin's business comes through Grubhub, so the online platform allowed the restaurants to grow its customer and revenue base.
Regarding the treble damages, Grubhub further contended that Illinois' consumer fraud law did not apply to non-Illinois plaintiffs.
“And even if plaintiffs could overcome these threshold issues, their claim would still fail on the merits under the Act and Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleadings standard, as the complaint is devoid of particularized allegations of 'deceptive' practices or of any intent that plaintiffs rely on such alleged practices,” Grubhub said.
Neither Kcehowski nor Pratsinakis returned a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Against Major Food Brands Could Be Sign of Emerging Litigation Over Processed Foods
3 minute read'Ice Pop,' 'Meta Moon,' 'Blue Raspberry': Tracked Drink Flavor Searches Fail in Privacy Suit
4 minute read3rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
Trending Stories
- 1Former U.S. Dept. of Education Attorney Suspended for Failure to Complete CLE Credits
- 2ArentFox Schiff Adds Global Complex Litigation Partner in Los Angeles
- 3Bittensor Hackers, Accused of Stealing Over $28 Million, Face Federal Lawsuit
- 4In Novel Oil and Gas Feud, 5th Circuit Gives Choice of Arbitration Venue
- 5Jury Seated in Glynn County Trial of Ex-Prosecutor Accused of Shielding Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250