> you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely

Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by extrapolation. Requiring extrapolation =! clear disclaimer imo. I would in fact expect a clear disclaimer to require no extrapolation, and be so dumbly explained that anyone who can read at at teen level can understand it.)

You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.

Oh, okay, I’ve edited my post to say that “this is not a clear disclaimer”.

“Partner” implies agreed upon consent. The assumption from the grub hub text is that all restaurants on their platform are “partners” and have therefore consented.

The two possible omissions are: 1) “partners” does not actually mean consent. 2) They have other restaurants on their platform who are not “partners”, but they have the largest “partner” network even without those unconsenting restaurants.

Both are deceitful of the common reading of the language which implies both consent and that their platform serves only the group mentioned.

It’s leveraging omission and ambiguity to communicate a false hood. 90% of people read it they way grub hub is not using the phrasing.

No, you're making an assumption and misinterpreting the sentence as well - they're not saying all restaurants on their platform in the statement we're referencing are partners.

I agree them saying there are partners doesn't define what that means, nor if they said they "work with restaurants." That still doesn't mean it's valid to believe assumptions are truth when you don't know the answer.

In English, by calling out a specific subject in the sentence that is the implied and assumed context. Not more and not less. Unless clarified in preceding or subsequent sentences. Otherwise everything needs a qualifier all of the time which would make communication annoying, overly verbose, and burdensome. We do this to get along in the world and with each other. This is why it is correct to consider Grubhub dishonest or incompetent. They are using an alternate meaning, which is not common usage, by leaving out the necessary qualifiers to communicate what they actually mean.

By your misinterpretation of this I’d guess you deal with rigorous systems and strive towards clarity. That is fine but not how common language is used. Grub hubs language here is exploiting not using common standards to veil their intended and unexpected meaning in language the reader will find positive because of their common interpretation, which is false information because grubhub means something non-standard.

These are often termed lies of ommission, where details are left out to make what is said appear to be the full truth, and not just a slice of it. By only stating that they work with partners, they imply that they only work with partners.