Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE
`O’BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
`Matthew L. Venezia (State Bar No. 313812)
` mvenezia@bgrfirm.com
`George B. A. Laiolo (State Bar No. 329850)
` glaiolo@egcfirm.com
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone:
`(310) 274-7100
`Facsimile:
`(310) 275-5697
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Leonard Lawson
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
` Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`(1) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
`CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT;
`
`(2) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
`FALSE ADVERTISING LAW;
`
`(3) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
`UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW; AND
`
`(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`
`LEONARD LAWSON,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`14
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff Leonard Lawson (“Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint individually, and on behalf of
`
`2
`
`all persons similarly situated, against Defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash”), and alleges as
`
`3
`
`follows:
`
`4
`
`5
`
`1.
`
`DoorDash has risen to prominence as the market leader for restaurant delivery
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`6
`
`services. Today, customers can order food for delivery (in addition to various other items) from
`
`7
`
`hundreds of thousands of participating restaurants and stores—referred to by DoorDash as
`
`8
`
`“merchants.”
`
`9
`
`2.
`
`More than 25 million people have signed up for DoorDash’s services, and in 2021,
`
`10
`
`DoorDash reported earning in excess of $4.8 billion in revenue, on a gross order volume nearing
`
`11
`
`$50 billion. DoorDash has obtained significant private equity investment, and in the latest round
`
`12
`
`of financing, achieved a valuation of $16 billion.
`
`13
`
`3.
`
`This growth was largely fueled by the promise of free delivery. Consumers, now
`
`14
`
`more than ever, choose to have meals and other items delivered by DoorDash, because DoorDash
`
`15
`
`purports to provide the service for free. In other words, why drive to a restaurant to pick up dinner
`
`16
`
`when DoorDash represents that it will bring your food to you at no charge?
`
`17
`
`4.
`
`This sales pitch has caused consumers to flock to the DoorDash platform, and upon
`
`18
`
`information and belief, DoorDash chose to emphasize the claim that it does not charge delivery
`
`19
`
`fees because it understood that consumers abhor delivery fees, and in many cases will walk away
`
`20
`
`from a purchase before agreeing to pay for delivery.
`
`21
`
`5.
`
`However, DoorDash’s promise of free delivery was a lie. While DoorDash
`
`22
`
`regularly advertises that it charges a “$0 delivery fee,” and DoorDash’s order confirmation page
`
`23
`
`confirms a $0.00 delivery fee, delivery fees are in fact hidden in the purchase price for individual
`
`24
`
`items ordered on DoorDash.1
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6.
`
`Products on DoorDash are routinely marked up from the prices charged by
`
`
`1 Even where DoorDash admits delivery fees are being charged on the order confirmation page,
`additional delivery fees are still hidden from the customers, in the same manner explained below.
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-1-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`merchants to customers who walk into the physical locations. As an example, a customer walking
`
`2
`
`into the California Pizza Kitchen on Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles, California would be
`
`3
`
`charged $17.99 for their pepperoni pizza, whereas a customer ordering the exact same pizza for
`
`4
`
`delivery on DoorDash would be charged $20.70, before any delivery fee, or the disclosed fees and
`
`5
`
`estimated tax. DoorDash never conspicuously discloses this practice.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`7.
`
`Similarly, for many merchants, DoorDash charges customers that select the
`
`26
`
`delivery option more for the same products than customers who select the pickup option. For
`
`27
`
`example, a customer that orders a fish taco from Tacos Super Gallito on Santa Monica Boulevard
`
`28
`
`in Los Angeles, California would be charged $3.89 for the taco, before any delivery fee, or the
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-2-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`disclosed fees and estimated tax, whereas a customer choosing to pick up his order would be
`
`2
`
`charged $3.17 for the exact same taco. DoorDash never discloses this practice.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`8.
`
`Through these practices, upon information and belief, DoorDash has concealed
`
`23
`
`billions of dollars in delivery fees from customers, and induced millions of customers to sign up
`
`24
`
`for and place orders through the DoorDash platform, that otherwise would not have done so.
`
`25
`
`9.
`
`These unlawful advertising practices have brought scrutiny from local
`
`26
`
`governments, e.g., The City of Chicago filed claims against DoorDash based upon DoorDash’s
`
`27
`
`deception concerning the true costs of its delivery service. Those claims have already proceeded
`
`28
`
`past a motion to dismiss.
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-3-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Leonard Lawson is an individual residing in Kansas City, Missouri.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant DoorDash is
`
`4
`
`a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`7
`
`1332(d)(2)(A) because the amount in controversy well exceeds $5 million and Plaintiff represents
`
`8
`
`a putative nationwide class that, upon information and belief, includes well in excess of 100
`
`9
`
`members and members from each of the other 49 states besides California.
`
`10
`
`13.
`
`Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because DoorDash is
`
`11
`
`headquartered in this district and, upon information and belief, established the false advertising
`
`12
`
`practices at issue in this case, and directs those practices nationwide, from within the district.
`
`13
`
`Thus, a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claims asserted herein
`
`14
`
`occurred within this district. DoorDash also targets customers with its false advertising and makes
`
`15
`
`substantial sales within the district.
`
`16
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over DoorDash because DoorDash maintains
`
`17
`
`its principal place of business in California. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over
`
`18
`
`DoorDash because DoorDash regularly markets and sells its services, including the services at
`
`19
`
`issue in this case, to customers in California, and specifically in this district.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`A.
`
`15.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`DoorDash becomes market leader providing restaurant delivery services.
`
`Founded in 2013, DoorDash operates an online food ordering and delivery service,
`
`23
`
`which has in recent years been expanded to offer delivery from additional types of stores other
`
`24
`
`than restaurants, like grocery and convenience stores.
`
`25
`
`16.
`
`Hundreds of thousands of merchants have signed up for DoorDash, and using the
`
`26
`
`DoorDash platform, customers can place orders at those merchants, with DoorDash then
`
`27
`
`coordinating delivery of the orders. These orders can be placed on DoorDash’s website, or through
`
`28
`
`DoorDash’s app.
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-4-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`17.
`
`In exchange for this service, DoorDash discloses that customers are charged a
`
`2
`
`service fee, and in certain instances, a delivery fee. However, as discussed in more detail below,
`
`3
`
`the delivery fees advertised by DoorDash and quoted to the customer in the order confirmation
`
`4
`
`page deliberately conceal the true cost of delivery when using DoorDash.
`
`5
`
`18.
`
`DoorDash has grown to be the market leader in the food delivery space—its market
`
`6
`
`share estimated by McKenzie & Company to have reached 53% of the United States market in
`
`7
`
`2021 (followed by Uber Eats at 26%, GrubHub at 12%, and Postmates at 5%).
`
`8
`
`19.
`
`As noted above, DoorDash reports that more than 25 million customers have signed
`
`9
`
`up for its service. This growth is also reflected in DoorDash’s revenues, which reached in excess
`
`10
`
`of $4.8 billion for just 2021. Upon information and belief, the total gross order volume on
`
`11
`
`DoorDash for the same year neared $50 billion.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`B.
`
`To achieve this success, DoorDash hides the true delivery costs from its
`
`customers, touting free delivery.
`
`20.
`
`DoorDash’s website and app prominently advertise a low delivery fee in an attempt
`
`15
`
`to convince customers to place delivery orders on their platform. An example is provided below.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`21.
`
`On many orders, DoorDash represents that there is a “$0 delivery fee.” This
`
`-5-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`representation is made to customers when selecting a restaurant, e.g., representations that a
`
`2
`
`restaurant offers a “$0 delivery fee” or “$0 delivery fee over $[certain amount of money].” This
`
`3
`
`representation is repeated on the order confirmation page, where DoorDash discloses the
`
`4
`
`“Delivery Fee” prior to a customer submitting their order.
`
`5
`
`22.
`
`DoorDash’s promise of free delivery is simply not true. DoorDash conceals the true
`
`6
`
`delivery fees in several material ways.
`
`7
`
`23.
`
`In the background—undisclosed to customers—DoorDash charges its merchants a
`
`8
`
`commission of 15%–30% of the total purchase price for each order. DoorDash represented in an
`
`9
`
`announcement for its participating merchants that this commission is used to cover several
`
`10
`
`operating costs associated with providing its delivery services, e.g., dasher pay, background
`
`11
`
`checks, customer service, insurance, and operation of the DoorDash app and website.
`
`12
`
`24.
`
`This 15%–30% commission is not in fact generally borne by the restaurants, but is
`
`13
`
`instead passed along to DoorDash’s customers in the form of an upcharge imposed by DoorDash
`
`14
`
`for items ordered through its app or website.
`
`15
`
`25.
`
`That is, DoorDash imposes an undisclosed upcharge for items ordered through its
`
`16
`
`platform such that prices for the exact same items are higher on DoorDash than if a customer
`
`17
`
`walked into a restaurant or store. As explained above using the California Pizza Kitchen example,
`
`18
`
`the same pepperoni pizza costs more on DoorDash than when purchased directly through the
`
`19
`
`restaurant. This practice is widely employed by DoorDash throughout its hundreds of thousands of
`
`20
`
`restaurant and store partners. It is thus false and misleading to suggest products purchased on
`
`21
`
`DoorDash have no (or a certain disclosed) delivery fee—customers pay higher prices for the items
`
`22
`
`delivered than they would if they went into the restaurant or store.
`
`23
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, the viability of DoorDash’s platform relies on
`
`24
`
`DoorDash’s passing along of the true costs of delivery to its customers. In other words, merchants
`
`25
`
`could not afford to participate in DoorDash’s platform if they were required to shoulder the burden
`
`26
`
`of DoorDash’s 15%–30% commission themselves.
`
`27
`
`27.
`
`There is of course another option as to how DoorDash could structure its business.
`
`28
`
`If DoorDash intends to pass along the true costs of delivery to its customers, as it does, DoorDash
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-6-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`could not charge its merchants a commission, but instead charge customers the same 15%–30% as
`
`2
`
`a disclosed delivery fee. This would inform DoorDash’s customers as to the true cost of delivery
`
`3
`
`when placing an order through DoorDash, and allow DoorDash customers to make an educated
`
`4
`
`decision as to whether they should order through DoorDash. Upon information and belief,
`
`5
`
`DoorDash has not structured its business in this way because DoorDash knows that if it disclosed
`
`6
`
`the true costs of delivery to its customers, DoorDash would sign up significantly less users and
`
`7
`
`make significantly less sales through its app and website.
`
`8
`
`28.
`
`To the extent DoorDash argues these upcharges are adequately disclosed in its
`
`9
`
`terms of service, the argument must fail. As a threshold issue, DoorDash customers do not agree to
`
`10
`
`DoorDash’s Terms of Service when signing up for DoorDash, because DoorDash does not
`
`11
`
`conspicuously place the link to its Terms of Service where customers are likely to see it. The link
`
`12
`
`to DoorDash’s terms of service appears at the bottom of its website, underneath the “Sign Up”
`
`13
`
`button, and a customer can sign up for DoorDash’s service and place orders without ever seeing a
`
`14
`
`link to DoorDash’s Terms of Service.
`
`15
`
`29.
`
`Even if a customer were to locate and review DoorDash’s Terms of Service, the
`
`16
`
`purported disclosure is inconspicuously located within Section 11(a), not emphasized in any way,
`
`17
`
`and confusingly worded as follows:
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`[T]he prices for menu or other items displayed through the Services
`may differ from the prices offered or published by Merchants for the
`same menu or other items and/or from prices available at third-party
`websites and that such prices may not be the lowest prices at which
`the menu or other items are sold[.]
`
`30.
`
`It is not simply the case that prices “may differ.” DoorDash employs a consistent
`
`22
`
`practice of increasing the price of items purchased through its platform vis-à-vis prices available
`
`23
`
`directly through the merchants. DoorDash does not, for instance, regularly lower prices, and even
`
`24
`
`this purported disclosure is confusingly worded to avoid admitting DoorDash’s consistent practice
`
`25
`
`of imposing upcharges on its customers.
`
`26
`
`31. Moreover, for certain restaurants and stores, DoorDash charges customers that
`
`27
`
`select the delivery option a higher price for their items than customers that select the pickup
`
`28
`
`option. As illustrated using the Tacos Super Gallito example above, DoorDash charges a higher
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-7-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`price for the exact same fish taco when a customer selects the delivery option, and does not
`
`2
`
`disclose that upcharge as part of the delivery fee.
`
`3
`
`32.
`
`DoorDash does not disclose this practice anywhere—customers, relying on
`
`4
`
`DoorDash’s calculation of the delivery fee to be accurate have no reason to “comparison shop” by
`
`5
`
`clicking on the pickup button to discover the hidden upcharge.
`
`6
`
`33. While DoorDash regularly advertises and induces customers to use its platform by
`
`7
`
`offering free delivery, DoorDash’s practice of concealing the true delivery fees is no less
`
`8
`
`confusing when considering orders that have a disclosed delivery fee. For example, if a customer
`
`9
`
`agrees to pay a $3.99 delivery fee, but DoorDash imposes an undisclosed upcharge on the
`
`10
`
`individual items, that is not included within the quoted delivery fee, the customer still pays more
`
`11
`
`for delivery than they bargained for.
`
`12
`
`34.
`
`DoorDash’s practice of disclosing the “Delivery Fee” and “Fees & Estimated Tax”
`
`13
`
`in its order confirmation page renders the above practices even more misleading. Upon
`
`14
`
`information and belief, DoorDash customers believe that any costs associated with using the
`
`15
`
`DoorDash platform and delivery would be disclosed within these itemized categories, and they are
`
`16
`
`in fact not.
`
`17
`
`35.
`
`Using these tactics, DoorDash has deceived many millions of DoorDash customers
`
`18
`
`into paying more in delivery fees than they agreed to or believed they were paying. Had these
`
`19
`
`customers known the true delivery fees, a significant percentage of the customers would have
`
`20
`
`simply not ordered delivery.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`C.
`
`Believing he would receive free delivery, Plaintiff signs up for a DoorDash
`
`account and orders meals for delivery from DoorDash.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff was attracted to the DoorDash platform by its promise of free delivery,
`
`24
`
`and signed up for an account in April of 2022.
`
`25
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff signed up for an account using his laptop, and at no time during the sign
`
`26
`
`up process did Plaintiff see any link to DoorDash’s Terms of Service, nor any language suggesting
`
`27
`
`that by signing up for DoorDash, Plaintiff was agreeing to any particular Terms of Service.
`
`28
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff made two separate delivery orders through DoorDash, and was motivated
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-8-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`to place each delivery order, as opposed to ordering directly from the restaurants, because
`
`2
`
`DoorDash represented that Plaintiff would be charged a “$0 delivery fee”.
`
`3
`
`39.
`
`However, the representation that Plaintiff would be charged a “$0 delivery fee” was
`
`4
`
`false and misleading.
`
`5
`
`40.
`
`On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff placed a delivery order from Ma & Pa’s Kettle in
`
`6
`
`Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff ordered a roast beef dinner and a soda, and DoorDash represented
`
`7
`
`to Plaintiff that the order included no delivery fee. Plaintiff was charged $9.29 for the roast beef
`
`8
`
`dinner, as pictured below.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`41.
`
`However, had Plaintiff made the same order for takeout, upon information and
`
`belief, Plaintiff would have been charged $8.59 for the exact same roast beef dinner.
`
`42.
`
`On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff placed an order from Wingstop. Plaintiff ordered the 15-
`
`piece meal for two, and DoorDash represented to Plaintiff that the order included no delivery fee.
`
`The price for the food was represented to be $28.79, as pictured below.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-9-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`43.
`
`DoorDash imposed an undisclosed upcharge on these items, which would have
`
`costed $24.99 had Plaintiff ordered directly from Wingstop and picked the items up.
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-10-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`44.
`
`But for DoorDash’s misrepresentation that delivery was free, Plaintiff would not
`
`2
`
`have placed the above-described delivery orders through DoorDash.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`D.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff opts out of the DoorDash’s Arbitration Agreement.
`
`Plaintiff did not agree to DoorDash’s Terms of Service at any time. Nonetheless, to
`
`5
`
`avoid any argument that this dispute should be arbitrated, pursuant to Section 12(h) of DoorDash’s
`
`6
`
`Terms of Service, within 30 days of Plaintiff’s original sign up for DoorDash, Plaintiff opted out
`
`7
`
`of DoorDash’s Arbitration Agreement. Plaintiff complied with all requirements of that Section in
`
`8
`
`order to validly opt out of DoorDash’s Arbitration Agreement.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a putative class of DoorDash
`
`11
`
`customers who are similarly situated under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
`
`12
`
`Civil Procedure (the “Customer Class”).
`
`13
`
`47.
`
`The Customer Class seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, and is defined
`
`14
`
`as follows:
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`•
`
`All persons or entities in the United States that have placed a delivery order
`through DoorDash and been charged a higher price for the purchased items than
`they would have been charged if the customer purchased the items directly from the
`merchant, or through DoorDash’s pickup option. This class is limited to those
`persons or entities that have opted out of DoorDash’s Arbitration Agreement.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, given that DoorDash’s revenue is in the billions of
`
`19
`
`dollars per year, and given that DoorDash reports having in excess of 25 million users, the
`
`20
`
`Customer Class consists of well in excess of 100 DoorDash users located throughout the United
`
`21
`
`States. The exact number and identities of the members of the Customer Class is known or readily
`
`22
`
`ascertainable by DoorDash, and the number of persons who fall within the definition of the
`
`23
`
`Customer Class is so numerous and geographically dispersed as to make joinder of all members of
`
`24
`
`the Customer Class in their individual capacity impracticable, inefficient, and unmanageable so as
`
`25
`
`to effectively deny each putative member of the Customer Class his, her, or their right to obtain
`
`26
`
`relief based on the claims and allegations made in this Complaint.
`
`27
`
`49.
`
`There are common questions of law and fact as to the Customer Class, relating to
`
`28
`
`and/or dispositive of the allegations of unlawful and misleading conduct made in the Complaint,
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-11-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`and relating to and/or dispositive of the common pattern of alleged injury and harm caused by that
`
`2
`
`unlawful and misleading conduct and sustained by the putative members of the Customer Class,
`
`3
`
`including, but not limited to:
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Whether DoorDash’s practice of charging higher prices for the delivery of items
`than those offered directly by the merchant, or through DoorDash’s pickup option,
`and not including that upcharge in its quoted delivery fee constitutes false or
`misleading advertising.
`
`To the extent DoorDash’s Terms of Use can be enforced by DoorDash, whether the
`purported disclosure related to DoorDash’s upcharge from the merchants’ pricing is
`sufficient to remedy the false and misleading nature of DoorDash’s advertising.
`
`Whether members of the Customer Class’s damages may be calculated by
`measuring the amount of the undisclosed upcharge from the prices available
`directly from the merchants, or through DoorDash’s pickup option.
`
`50.
`
`The interests of Plaintiff and the Customer Class are aligned. Plaintiff seeks to
`
`12
`
`establish that DoorDash is required to refund undisclosed amounts paid by customers for its
`
`13
`
`delivery services. Should Plaintiff prevail in establishing the same, each of the other members of
`
`14
`
`the Customer Class would then be entitled to similar refunds for the damage caused to them by
`
`15
`
`DoorDash’s practice of concealing the true delivery costs.
`
`16
`
`51.
`
`The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Customer Class. Plaintiff
`
`17
`
`placed delivery orders for items that were sold at a higher price than if Plaintiff ordered directly
`
`18
`
`from the merchants, and Plaintiff was deceived into believing he was receiving free delivery.
`
`19
`
`52.
`
`The Customer Class is represented by counsel who are competent and experienced
`
`20
`
`in the prosecution and defense of similar claims and litigation, including class actions filed,
`
`21
`
`prosecuted, defended, or litigated under California and federal law, in federal courts, in connection
`
`22
`
`with claims and certification of consumer classes composed of members who reside in California
`
`23
`
`and/or the United States. Counsel has prosecuted and defended many significant cases brought
`
`24
`
`pursuant to California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL.
`
`25
`
`53.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Customer Class
`
`26
`
`would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications.
`
`27
`
`54.
`
`The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Customer Class
`
`28
`
`predominate over any questions of law or fact affecting only individual members of the Customer
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-12-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`Class. The primary claim to be proved in this case is whether DoorDash’s concealment of the true
`
`2
`
`costs of delivery account to actionable false advertising, and DoorDash’s practices are consistently
`
`3
`
`applied to each individual member of the Customer Class. Moreover, questions as to the
`
`4
`
`appropriate method to determine damages can be adjudicated class-wide. These issues
`
`5
`
`predominate over any individual issues, of which there appear to be none.
`
`6
`
`55.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`7
`
`adjudication of this controversy. Treatment as a class action will permit a large number of
`
`8
`
`similarly situated persons to adjudicate their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,
`
`9
`
`efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions
`
`10
`
`would engender. Prosecution as a class action will eliminate the need for repetitious litigation—if
`
`11
`
`it were even feasible for members of the Customer Class to proceed individually.
`
`12
`
`56.
`
`The amount of potential damages for each member of the Customer Class is small
`
`13
`
`enough that no legal recourse can realistically be obtained by members of the Customer Class
`
`14
`
`without proceeding as a class action. Thus, members of the Customer Class have no cognizable
`
`15
`
`interest in individually litigating and controlling the claims asserted herein.
`
`16
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff is aware of one similar case filed against DoorDash with a putative class
`
`17
`
`that may overlap with the Customer Class—Schwartz v. DoorDash, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00250-
`
`18
`
`YGR in the Northern District of California. However, Plaintiff understands that the named
`
`19
`
`plaintiffs in Schwartz did not opt out of DoorDash’s Terms of Service, and there is a motion
`
`20
`
`pending seeking to compel arbitration of the claims in Schwartz on an individual basis.
`
`21
`
`58.
`
`California is a proper and desirable forum for the claims against DoorDash to be
`
`22
`
`litigated. DoorDash is based in California, and California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL provide
`
`23
`
`remedies to each member of the Customer Class. As to those members of the Customer Class
`
`24
`
`residing outside California, California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL provide remedies consistent with
`
`25
`
`that which are available in the members’ home states.
`
`26
`
`59.
`
`The Customer Class is readily definable by review of sales records and opt out
`
`27
`
`records that should exist in the files of DoorDash. Moreover, DoorDash should have records of the
`
`28
`
`e-mail addresses and addresses of customers that have purchased items through DoorDash such
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-13-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`that providing notice to the Customer Class will be practicable. Thus, there does not exist any
`
`2
`
`significant likely difficulties in managing the claims as a class action.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act [Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.])
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
`
`6
`
`each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 59 above.
`
`7
`
`61.
`
`DoorDash has committed unlawful acts as defined by California Civil Code § 1770,
`
`8
`
`by engaging in the false and misleading advertising described above, wherein DoorDash hides the
`
`9
`
`true cost of delivery associated with placing delivery orders on its platform.
`
`10
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff and the members of the Customer Class relied on DoorDash’s
`
`11
`
`representation as to the amount of delivery fees when deciding to place their delivery orders
`
`12
`
`through DoorDash.
`
`13
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff and each member of the Customer Class suffered an injury as a direct and
`
`14
`
`proximate result of DoorDash’s practice of concealing the true delivery costs associated with
`
`15
`
`ordering through its platform; i.e., being charged delivery fees that they did not agree to be
`
`16
`
`charged.
`
`17
`
`64.
`
`Unless enjoined, DoorDash will continue to engage in false and misleading
`
`18
`
`advertising by concealing the true delivery costs associated with placing an order for delivery on
`
`19
`
`its platform.
`
`20
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, the above-described operations of DoorDash occur in
`
`21
`
`California, where it is headquartered. When any customer purchases an item using DoorDash, they
`
`22
`
`access a website or app published from California and send money into California in exchange for
`
`23
`
`the item. Moreover, upon information and belief, a significant percentage of DoorDash’s sales and
`
`24
`
`deliveries occur within California.
`
`25
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff and the members of the Customer Class are without an adequate remedy at
`
`26
`
`law. DoorDash’s false and misleading advertising is ongoing and will continue absent injunctive
`
`27
`
`relief, causing continued economic and intangible harms to customers.
`
`28
`
`67. Moreover, while Plaintiff and the Customer Class may later be able to seek
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-14-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`compensatory damages pursuant to their CLRA claim, they cannot now, and do not now, pending
`
`2
`
`expiration of the 30-day notice period triggered by their Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a) notice.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California’s False Advertising Law [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.)
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
`
`6
`
`each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 67 above.
`
`7
`
`69.
`
`DoorDash has engaged in false and misleading advertising, by engaging in the
`
`8
`
`practices described above, wherein DoorDash hides the true cost of delivery associated with
`
`9
`
`placing delivery orders on its platform.
`
`10
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff and the members of the Customer Class relied on DoorDash’s
`
`11
`
`representation as to the amount of delivery fees when deciding to place their delivery orders
`
`12
`
`through DoorDash.
`
`13
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff and each member of the Customer Class suffered an injury as a direct and
`
`14
`
`proximate result of DoorDash’s practice of concealing the true delivery costs associated with
`
`15
`
`ordering through its platform; i.e., being charged delivery fees that they did not agree to be
`
`16
`
`charged.
`
`17
`
`72.
`
`Unless enjoined, DoorDash will continue to engage in false and misleading
`
`18
`
`advertising by concealing the true delivery costs associated with placing an order for delivery on
`
`19
`
`its platform.
`
`20
`
`73.
`
`Upon information and belief, the above-described operations of DoorDash occur in
`
`21
`
`California, where it is headquartered. When any customer purchases an item using DoorDash, they
`
`22
`
`access a website or app published from California and send money into California in exchange for
`
`23
`
`the item. Moreover, upon information and belief, a significant percentage of DoorDash’s sales and
`
`24
`
`deliveries occur within California.
`
`25
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff and the members of the Customer Class are without an adequate remedy at
`
`26
`
`law. DoorDash’s false and misleading advertising is ongoing and will continue absent injunctive
`
`27
`
`relief, causing continued economic and intangible harms to customers.
`
`28
`
`
`
`2075326.1
`
`
`
`-15-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04059 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 17 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.])
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, as though set forth in full,
`
`4
`
`each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 74 above.
`
`5
`
`76.
`
`DoorDash has committed acts of unfair competition, as defined by California
`
`6
`
`Business and Professions Code § 17200, by engaging in the unlawful practices described above.
`
`7
`
`Without limitation, DoorDash violates the CLRA’s prohibition against misleading advertising and
`
`