Nevada targets fake ‘ghost kitchens’ on food delivery apps

Chef James Trees noticed his nationally recognized restaurant, Esther’s Kitchen in downtown Las Vegas, was being impersonated on a food delivery platform based on a negative Google review “with a picture of a pizza that was highly not to my standard.”

Esther’s Kitchen is not on any food delivery apps because of quality control and profitability concerns, Trees told lawmakers in the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor on Monday. But he found the imposters’ version of his restaurant on a delivery app — charging more than his restaurant and offering food items that he doesn’t sell.

“Basically, these people screenshotted my logo and a picture of one of the dishes of my food, and used it to promote their menu,” Trees said.

Supporters of a bill taking aim at “ghost kitchens” on food delivery apps contend it will address phony delivery-only restaurant operations through penalties against the app or platform. Assembly Bill 116 requires food delivery apps only work with businesses with proper permits from their local health authority. Platforms who do not would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett, the bill’s primary sponsor, said the bill “holds food delivery apps accountable” by forcing the platforms to verify the restaurants on its marketplace are legitimate.

“Ultimately, people work their whole life to build brands and to build a restaurant,” said Torres-Fossett, D-Las Vegas. “It is unfair to these brands and to these restaurant owners that their reputation can be ruined through applications.”

“Ghost kitchens,” also known as dark kitchens or delivery-only restaurants, can have different meanings. It generally refers to a restaurant that operates only on food delivery apps. Some operate out of commercial kitchens while others use their existing restaurant but sell another brand and menu online. Still others purport to be another business entirely.

Christina Martin, owner of Manizza’s Pizza in Las Vegas, said she learned of another business impersonating hers when a customer called in asking about menu items they didn’t have. The customer said she found the restaurant on UberEats. Martin said she soon realized that another restaurant was pretending to be hers and others on multiple food delivery platforms, leading her to take the story to social media and TV news stations.

“That’s a big deal, not only because it’s ripping off our brands, but it’s putting our customers’ safety in jeopardy,” Martin said. “I worked to put a lot of things in place to make sure we have an A on all of our health permits, all of our inspections are flawless. My team holds really high standards, and the restaurant in question had really ugly health reports.”

Several tech platforms testified in opposition to the bill, saying they faced disproportionate risk, and the legislation was unclear on how often verification documents would need to be submitted.

Uber submitted a proposed amendment that would change the penalty from a misdemeanor to a civil penalty of no more than $500 and change a health permit verification to a business license one.

But Torres-Fossett said those amendments would do little to deter platforms from ridding themselves of unregulated kitchens.

Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, D-Las Vegas, requested the tech platforms submit their existing protocols for dealing with ghost kitchens to the committee.

Contact McKenna Ross at mross@reviewjournal.com. Follow @mckenna_ross_ on X.