Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Doordash, Inc. et al v. City and County of San Francisco
Case Number:
3:21-cv-05502
See also:
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Constitutional - State Statute
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
March 24, 2022
DoorDash's Suit Over San Francisco's Fee Cap Trimmed
A California federal judge on Wednesday dismissed the bulk of DoorDash and Grubhub's suit challenging San Francisco's law capping the fees they can charge restaurants, finding that the ordinance serves a legitimate purpose by protecting the restaurant industry, but said the court must evaluate the ordinance's economic impact on the companies.
-
December 16, 2021
San Francisco Asks Judge To Toss 15% Delivery Fee Cap Suit
The San Francisco City Attorney's Office urged a California federal judge at a hearing Thursday to dismiss DoorDash and Grubhub's lawsuit challenging a 15% cap on fees the delivery giants can charge local restaurants, arguing that the city law is a reasonable way to protect restaurants from going out of business.
-
July 19, 2021
DoorDash, Grubhub Sue San Francisco Over 15% Fee Cap
Delivery giants DoorDash and Grubhub hit San Francisco with a lawsuit in California federal court Friday over a law permanently capping fees that the platforms can charge local restaurants at 15%, arguing that the law violates the U.S. and California constitutions and may unintentionally harm local restaurants, workers and consumers.