Your "why" is totally arbitrary. Shelf life? Why not dollars? Apple could say it should receive extra protection because it loses 1000+ dollars every time an unauthorized MacBook Pro or iPhone 12 is sold outside of the channels that it controls. (I don't believe that is entirely true, but it's how Apple would argue it) Whereas unauthorized food deliveries are dealing in the tens of dollars, and further, the restaurant is never totally cut out of the loop, since previously-consumed food can't be resold.
The distinctions are only arbitrary in the fantasy world where an iPhone is remotely similar to a burger.
Food products, especially restaurant foods, are regulated differently than non-food consumer goods. And have been for over a century. There are licensing requirements, safety requirements, and other rules that apply to restaurants that don't apply to other businesses.
And those "arbitrary" laws make all the difference in why unapproved middlemen should not be allowed for restaurant foods.
> There are licensing requirements, safety requirements, and other rules that apply to restaurants that don't apply to other businesses.
none of which are addressed in any way whatsoever in this new law. nor does this law add any licensing or safety requirements for the delivery person or delivery platform.
Additional licensing and safety requirements aren't required.
In requiring the delivery platforms to get permission from the restaurants, the delivery platforms are deemed agents of the restaurant and therefore are subject to any existing requirements that apply to food delivery.
IOW, the food safety rules now apply to Uber Eats, GrubHub, etc., without requiring a redundant set of new laws.
