No it is not the same, because there is no business agreement between Grubhub and the restaurant here unwilling and unaware restaurants aren't "kitchens" working for Grubhub.
Grubhub wouldn't dare pulling that stunt with McDonalds or BurgerKing and list their products, use their corporate identity and sandwich pictures without an agreement or striking a deal before hand.
They are preying on smaller restaurants because they know it's harder for the little guy to fight back, it's the very definition of predatory behaviour. You just don't see anything wrong with that.
You don’t need an agreement to resell product that you have purchased.
Or is everyone on HN now suddenly in favour of scrapping the first sale doctrine and allowing manufacturers to control if you can resell your property?
Madness. If GrubHub are able to buy the product they should be able to resell it.
You are ignoring 80% of my argumentations to make your sophistic point, and then complaining "about everyone on HN", you're just being disingenuous.
We're talking about prepared food here (and potentially fraud), not books. And you talk to me about "first sale doctrine" in relation to prepared food claiming everybody here is ignorant?
However they should be very clear that this is what they are doing, and that issues with the food are now their responsibility.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if GH/Uber/etc. were clearly advertising "Call us at xxx-xxx-xxxx, we'll order takeout for you and deliver it".
If they pick up the phone when you call and say "This is grubhub, how can we help you?" we'd be in different territory.
As soon as you make it ambiguous about who you are ordering from, this is an issue of misrepresentation. Even if it does apply, first sale doctrine is a red herring.
Lots of people have already explained this to you on many different comment threads in many different ways.