Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 64
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`MARIAM DAVITASHVILI, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`GRUBHUB INC. (a/d/b/a SEAMLESS), et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03000-
`LAK and consolidated case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF GRUBHUB INC.
`
`Defendant Grubhub Inc. (a/d/b/a Seamless) (“Grubhub”), by and through its attorneys,
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, hereby answers the Amended Consolidated Class Action
`
`Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) of Plaintiffs Mariam Davitashvili, Adam Bensimon, Mia
`
`Sapienza, Philip Eliades, Jonathan Swaby, John Boisi, Nathan Obey, and Malik Drewey,
`
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) as follows:1
`
`1. Grubhub admits that Plaintiffs’ purport to bring a putative class action lawsuit against
`
`Grubhub, Uber Technologies, Inc., and Postmates Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) under
`
`Section 1 of the Sherman Act and its state analogues, but denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any
`
`relief. Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants have violated antitrust laws by “exploiting, without
`
`procompetitive justification, their dominant position in the market for delivery and takeout
`
`
`1 Grubhub rejects the characterizations and implications contained in the section headings used
`in the Amended Complaint, and expressly hereby denies any and every allegation made or
`implied herein. Likewise, unless expressly noted otherwise herein, Grubhub denies any and all
`allegations made or implied in the Amended Complaint’s preamble, footnotes, charts, and any
`other notion of the Amended Complaint that is not contained within the specifically numbered
`paragraphs of the Amended Complaint.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 64
`
`through internet-based platforms that aggregate the offerings of multiple restaurants” is a legal
`
`conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub
`
`denies that the “market for delivery and takeout through internet-based platforms that aggregate
`
`the offerings of multiple restaurants” is a properly defined market for Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims,
`
`and that Grubhub has a “dominant position” in this erroneously defined market. Grubhub denies
`
`the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint made against
`
`Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint concerning
`
`other parties.
`
`2. Grubhub admits that the popularity of its platform has grown as consumer usage of smart
`
`phones has increased, to the benefit of both consumers and restaurants, and that Grubhub has
`
`approximately 32 million users as of June 30, 2021. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the same, and
`
`otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`3. Grubhub admits that most restaurant partners pay a commission, typically a percentage of
`
`the transaction, on orders that are processed through Grubhub’s platform. Restaurant partners
`
`choose their level of commission rate and may choose to pay a higher rate because the higher
`
`rate affects the prominence and exposure to diners a restaurant will have on Grubhub’s platform,
`
`which in turn can lead to increased sales for the restaurant partner. Additionally, if a restaurant
`
`partner opts to use Grubhub’s delivery services rather than retaining their own delivery services
`
`(e.g., hiring delivery drivers, retaining delivery service management, retaining customer service
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 64
`
`options for facilitating delivery services), the restaurant partner will pay an additional
`
`commission on the transactions for which they retain Grubhub’s delivery services for the use of
`
`those services. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint
`
`state legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,
`
`Grubhub denies the allegations. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the
`
`Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the same, and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph
`
`3 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`4. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint state legal
`
`conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub
`
`denies the allegations. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Amended
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies the same, and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4
`
`of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`5. Grubhub admits that its standard restaurant contract includes a provision that requires
`
`menu prices on Grubhub’s platform to be at least as favorable to diners as prices available on the
`
`restaurant’s standard menu. However, beginning in October 2019, in response to feedback from
`
`restaurants, Grubhub began limiting its enforcement of this menu price parity requirement only
`
`relative to menus on other third-party delivery services and not the restaurant’s standard menu.
`
`The remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 64
`
`allegations made against Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the
`
`Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`6. Grubhub denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint
`
`made against Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Amended
`
`Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`7. Grubhub denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint
`
`made against Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Amended
`
`Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations made against Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the
`
`Amended Complaint concerning other parties. Grubhub also lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the
`
`Amended Complaint vaguely referencing supposed conclusions reached by European regulators
`
`in unidentified matters, and therefore denies the same.
`
`9. The allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations made against Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 64
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the
`
`Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`10. Grubhub admits that Plaintiff Mariam Davitashvili has made one or more orders for the
`
`delivery and/or pickup of food via Grubhub’s platform. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`11. Grubhub admits that Plaintiff Adam Bensimon has made one or more orders for the
`
`delivery and/or pickup of food via Grubhub’s platform. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`12. Grubhub admits that Plaintiff Mia Sapienza has made one or more orders for the delivery
`
`and/or pickup of food via Grubhub’s platform. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`13. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the
`
`same, and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint concerning
`
`other parties.
`
`14. Grubhub admits that Plaintiff Jonathan Swaby has made one or more orders for the
`
`delivery and/or pickup of food via Grubhub’s platform. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 64
`
`15. Grubhub admits that Plaintiff John Boisi has made one or more orders for the delivery
`
`and/or pickup of food via Grubhub’s platform. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`16. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the
`
`same, and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint concerning
`
`other parties.
`
`17. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the
`
`same, and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint concerning
`
`other parties.
`
`18. Grubhub admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Chicago, Illinois; that in its Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K filing for the year
`
`ending December 31, 2019 it stated that it “connects more than 300,000 restaurants with hungry
`
`diners in thousands of cities across the United States and is focused on transforming the takeout
`
`experience;” and that its 2019 revenues were $1.31 billion as reported in its SEC 10-K filing for
`
`the year ending in December 31, 2019.
`
`19. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint and refers to the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 64
`
`document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 19 themselves for a complete and accurate
`
`statement of their context, content and meaning.
`
`20. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint and refers to the
`
`document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 20 themselves for a complete and accurate
`
`statement of their context, content and meaning.
`
`21. Grubhub refers to the document(s) and/or information relied on by Plaintiffs to support
`
`the allegation contained in Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`22. Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint contains legal assertions relating to jurisdiction
`
`as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub admits that
`
`Plaintiffs purport (erroneously and without justification) to bring this action but that it lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub, and
`
`therefore denies the same, and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Amended
`
`Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`23. Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint contains legal assertions relating to venue as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub admits that it has
`
`offices and transacts business in the Southern District of New York but that it lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub, and therefore
`
`denies the same, and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 64
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint
`
`concerning other parties.
`
`24. Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint contains legal assertions relating to jurisdiction
`
`as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub and
`
`otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`25. Grubhub admits that the advent and growth of the internet provided restaurants and
`
`consumers with many benefits, including but not limited to, additional ways to place orders for
`
`the delivery and/or pickup of goods. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`26. Grubhub admits that it launched an innovative service in 2004 that allowed consumers to
`
`access an online platform to facilitate restaurant pickup and ultimately delivery orders. Grubhub,
`
`however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies the same.
`
`27. Grubhub admits that its platform enables consumers to search for and order goods and/or
`
`food for pickup or delivery in certain localities, and that it also provides delivery services for its
`
`partners that do not want to, or cannot provide, delivery services themselves. Grubhub, however,
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 64
`
`28. The allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub and
`
`otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`29. The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies that the
`
`“Restaurant Platform Market” is a properly defined market for Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, and
`
`therefore Plaintiffs’ repeated references to the “Restaurant Platform Market” throughout the
`
`Amended Complaint is an erroneous legal conclusion. To the extent Grubhub responds to
`
`Plaintiffs’ allegations referencing the “Restaurant Platform Market,” Grubhub’s responses are
`
`not to be deemed concessions on the relevant market definition in this litigation. Grubhub denies
`
`the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint made against
`
`Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint concerning
`
`other parties.
`
`30. The allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies that the
`
`“Direct Takeout and Delivery Market” and the “Dine-In Market” are properly defined product
`
`markets for Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, and therefore Plaintiffs’ repeated references to the “Direct
`
`Takeout and Delivery Market” and the “Dine-In Market” throughout the Amended Complaint
`
`are erroneous legal conclusions. To the extent Grubhub responds to Plaintiffs’ allegations
`
`referencing the “Direct Takeout and Delivery Market” or the “Dine-In Market,” Grubhub’s
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 64
`
`responses are not to be deemed concessions on the relevant market definition in this litigation.
`
`Grubhub denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint
`
`made against Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Amended
`
`Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`31. The allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations that the erroneous “Restaurant Platform Market” is “dominated by just four firms.”
`
`32. The allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub, refers
`
`to the document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 32 themselves for a complete and
`
`accurate statement of their context, content and meaning, and otherwise avers that it lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`33. The allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub, refers
`
`to the document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 33 themselves for a complete and
`
`accurate statement of their context, content and meaning, and otherwise avers that it lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 64
`
`34. The allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub, refers
`
`to the document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 34 themselves for a complete and
`
`accurate statement of their context, content and meaning, and otherwise avers that it lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`35. The allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub and
`
`otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`36. Grubhub admits that its platform provides services that benefit both consumers and
`
`restaurants. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint state legal
`
`conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub
`
`denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint made against
`
`Grubhub and otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint concerning
`
`other parties.
`
`37. Grubhub admits that in its SEC 10-K filing for the year ending December 31, 2019 it
`
`stated that it “connects more than 300,000 restaurants with hungry diners in thousands of cities
`
`across the United States and is focused on transforming the takeout experience.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 64
`
`38. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint and refers to the
`
`document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 38 themselves for a complete and accurate
`
`statement of their context, content and meaning.
`
`39. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint and refers to the
`
`document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 39 themselves for a complete and accurate
`
`statement of their context, content and meaning.
`
`40. Grubhub admits that its platform connects and derives revenues from both restaurants and
`
`consumers. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint
`
`concerning other parties.
`
`41. Grubhub admits that most restaurant partners pay a commission, typically a percentage of
`
`the transaction, on orders that are processed through Grubhub’s platform. Restaurant partners
`
`choose their level of commission rate and may choose to pay a higher rate because the higher
`
`rate affects the prominence and exposure to diners a restaurant will have on Grubhub’s platform,
`
`which in turn can lead to increased sales for the restaurant partner. Additionally, if a restaurant
`
`partner opts to use Grubhub’s delivery services rather than retaining their own delivery services
`
`(e.g., hiring delivery drivers, retaining delivery service management, retaining customer service
`
`options for facilitating delivery services), the restaurant partner will pay an additional
`
`commission on the transactions for which they retain Grubhub’s delivery services for the use of
`
`those services. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 64
`
`concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint
`
`concerning other parties.
`
`42. Grubhub admits that most restaurant partners pay a commission, typically a percentage of
`
`the transaction, on orders that are processed through Grubhub’s platform. Restaurant partners
`
`choose their level of commission rate and may choose to pay a higher rate because the higher
`
`rate affects the prominence and exposure to diners a restaurant will have on Grubhub’s platform,
`
`which in turn can lead to increased sales for the restaurant partner. Additionally, if a restaurant
`
`partner opts to use Grubhub’s delivery services rather than retaining their own delivery services
`
`(e.g., hiring delivery drivers, retaining delivery service management, retaining customer service
`
`options for facilitating delivery services), the restaurant partner will pay an additional
`
`commission on the transactions for which they retain Grubhub’s delivery services for the use of
`
`those services. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint
`
`concerning other parties.
`
`43. Grubhub admits that it may charge fees directly to the consumers who use Grubhub’s
`
`services, including a “service fee.” Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of
`
`the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`44. Grubhub admits that it may charge fees directly to the consumers who use Grubhub’s
`
`services, including a “delivery fee.” Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 64
`
`45. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`46. The allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies that the
`
`“Restaurant Platform Market,” “Direct Takeout and Delivery Market,” and the “Dine-In Market”
`
`are properly defined product markets for Plaintiffs antitrust claims, and otherwise avers that it
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`47. The allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`48. Grubhub admits that its platform provides users with a current list of restaurants in a
`
`specific locality and that users may use this list to identify and select a restaurant for takeout or
`
`delivery based on their locality and/or feedback or reviews from other users. The remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub and otherwise
`
`avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`49. Grubhub admits that it provides its users with the ability to submit feedback on
`
`restaurants from which they have placed orders through Grubhub’s platform, which currently
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 64
`
`includes a system that allows users to rate an individual restaurant and leave a review that may
`
`inform others what they ordered from the restaurant.
`
`50. Grubhub admits that users of its platform may place food pickup and/or delivery orders
`
`without speaking to a person if they chose to do so, but notes that there is nothing preventing
`
`Grubhub users from contacting a restaurant directly. Grubhub also admits that once a user has
`
`provided Grubhub with their payment information, the user can place future orders without
`
`providing that information again. Grubhub, however, lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the
`
`Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`51. The allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub and
`
`otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`52. The allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`53. The allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint. Grubhub also lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint vaguely referencing supposed conclusions
`
`reached by commentators and politicians in unidentified matters, and therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03000-LAK Document 58 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 64
`
`54. The allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub and
`
`otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`55. The allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint made against Grubhub and
`
`otherwise avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint concerning other parties.
`
`56. The allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint state legal conclusions as to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Grubhub denies the
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`57. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint and refers to the
`
`document(s) and/or information cited in Paragraph 57 themselves for a complete and accurate
`
`statement of their context, content and meaning.
`
`58. Grubhub lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`59. Grubhub admits that its standard restaurant contract includes a provision that requires
`
`menu prices on Grubhub’s platform to be at least as favorable to diners as prices available on the
`
`restaurant’s standard menu. However, beginning in October 2019, in response to feedback from
`
`restaurants,