Lexpert magazine features articles and columns on developments in legal practice management, deals and lawsuits of interest in Canada, the law and business issues of interest to legal professionals and businesses that purchase legal services.
Issue link: https://digital.carswellmedia.com/i/1161185
18 LEXPERT MAGAZINE | AUGUST 2019 COLUMNS TECHNOLOGY dients in the store, and schlepp it all back home, only to realize you`re out of sea salt, and you have to run back to the grocery store, etc. What you'd really like is for someone to plan that menu, buy all the ingredients, and deliver them to you, so all you have to do is cook a wonderful meal for your partner and yourself. Well, good news, there's an app for that, and quite a few players in the "meal kit" space, who do exactly that. e technology really is the not-so-se- cret sauce of the meal kit companies and the food delivery platforms. Sure, we have been able to order pizzas for years over the phone. But today, the remote order direct- to-home delivery model is an entirely dif- ferent experience because of the technology that has been deployed by these players. It's an app – so convenient, so easy, so able to access many choices and options – overall, a very compelling experience. en, if you don`t want to cook – either ever again, as in never, nada, not doing it; or you just want a break on a Friday night, you have yet more great choices. Of course you can eat out, and in that sub-market, the choice in a major metropolitan area is quite impressive. In cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, and many others in our food loving land, you can have trouble choosing just between all the Korean places, or all the Mexican places – and if your taste skews towards traditional Italian, you will get a headache just trying to decide – seri- ously, the range of choice in sit down res- taurants is today pretty awesome (which is great for the consumer). If it's just lunch, and you just want to grab a quick bite, well, you guessed it, again there is choice galore. And hey, even the fast food segment is getting into disruptive mode. If you want a beef-based burger, there are chains making their patties with nothing but beef. But, if you want to try meatless burgers, there are now several chains car- rying those as well, with the different es- tablishments in this space competing with different brand veggie-based patties. And yes, you guessed it, the venture capitalists are plowing millions into meat substitute research at these meatless patty makers, which, again, is a great thing for the con- sumer. Each one hopes their particular bet will be the Amazon of the hamburger space – the disrupter that changes the market in a fundamental way. Fighting Disruptors > What about that food truck on the corner, that seems to be compet- ing with the fast food outlets? Yes they are, and evidence of yet more competitive dis- ruption. And just how disruptive? Well, in Chicago the City Council (at the behest of traditional restaurants) passed a by-law pro- hibiting food trucks from selling their food within 200 feet of bricks and mortar restau- rants. e law also required food trucks to be equipped with a GPS device, so their lo- cation could be tracked, if necessary. A food truck brought a legal proceeding to quash this new rule on the basis that it was protec- tionist legislation that unfairly favoured the bricks and mortar incumbents; but the rules were upheld in the Illinois Supreme Court, on the basis that the municipal government had a rational reason for wanting to regulate the new entrants. It is an old tactic for legacy businesses to fight newly arrived disrupters through re- strictive legislation, or through the courts, or both. e folks who operated turnpike roads fought the entry of canals; the folks who ran canals fought the entry of the rail- roads; the railroads fought the entry of the truckers; the truckers and railroads fought the entry of the airlines; the established airlines fought the entry of the discounter airlines; well, you get the picture. In each instance, the legislature was approached initially by the legacy company (or industry group) pleading for relief from the unfair competition of the new entrant; in turn, the new kid on the block argues that the legacy company is merely seeking "rents"; namely an above market return financially speak- ing, courtesy of the legislature (and/or the court system) blocking the entry of the new player, thereby eliminating (or at least shut- ting down) competition. Sometimes legacy businesses are successful at this blocking, but oen they are not – especially when the disruptor's technology model is so novel that it is hard to block, even with some po- litical support from the local government. A Level Playing Field > What`s the right answer in these circumstances? In my view, overall, and subject to certain exceptions, I believe what drives civilization forward (including the important food/nutrition sector) is indeed competitive disruption; so, my default position is that governments should be very wary of being pulled into a private competitive contest between two commercial rivals, and as a general proposi- tion, competition is a great thing – it's what keep us all (and I include lawyers and law firms) on our toes. If you believe, as I do, that the world has undergone incredible advancement over the last 250 years (essentially, through the 1800's and the 1900's, and now into the 21st centu- ry), I believe the people we have the most to thank for that progress is not, actually, poli- ticians, or clerics, but rather the thousands of business people and entrepreneurs who were disrupters (initially small players, but then some of them turned into full on, bona fide market moving competitive disruptors). ese are the visionaries who looked into the future, envisaged a better place, and worked hard to achieve it, to the benefit of all of us. And yes, today, when it comes to the food we eat, they are running companies that make meal kits, they manage food delivery ser- vices, and they own and operate food trucks. Not only are they offering net new eating experiences, at interesting price points. But as importantly, you have them to thank for the fact that your neighbourhood grocer is improving their store and offering more se- lection of food options, and why your local restaurant is changing up their menu with greater regularity, and why the fast food out- let you frequent at lunch from time to time has new menu selections that pleasantly sur- prise you. Of course every business involved in food preparation and delivery should be required to comply with food safety laws – governments should play no favourites on that score, or award special dispensation to newcomers from the health rules. But when it comes to competition, governments need to remember that it is competition that they should be protecting, and not indi- vidual competitors.