Popular food delivery services, Uber Eats, Postmates, and DoorDash, at least in Arizona, will no longer be able to offer discounts to businesses just because they are black-owned as they had been doing. This follows a settlement between the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Uber Eats, Postmates, and DoorDash after receiving more than 8,000 discrimination lawsuits last year.

As reported by Fox News, the food delivery companies settled a racial discrimination claim launched by the Arizona Attorney General’s office over the companies’ promotions to waive delivery fees for black-owned restaurants after Arizona claimed it violated entitlement law.

The firms resolved during 2020 to waive delivery fees for customers who purchased from black-owned merchants. The initiatives were launched after delivery services claimed, without solid arguments, that black-owned businesses had been disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

Other restaurant owners, whose customers still had to pay delivery fees, felt discriminated against by the policy, and discrimination lawsuits poured in as a result.

Part of the claims was based on accusing the businesses of violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on several factors, including race. 

At the time, Uber’s spokeswoman told Fox Business, “We’re proud to support Black-owned businesses with this initiative, as we know they’ve disproportionately been impacted by the health crisis,” Casserly said. “We heard loud and clear from consumers this was a feature they wanted—and we’ll continue to make it a priority.”

DoorDash also sent a similar message saying it “is proud to support black-owned businesses and honored to do our part to help those who need it most,” spokesperson Taylor Bennett said in a statement. The company further cited the disproportionate impact the CCP virus pandemic allegedly would have generated in communities of color.

However, given the more than 8,500 lawsuits received, it would appear that not everyone thinks so. Not to mention Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who asserted that this is a clear case of discrimination, regardless of whether the firms’ intentions are good.

“Even with the best of intentions, corporations can do the wrong thing. Altering the price of goods or services based on race is illegal,” the prosecutor said in a statement.

Brnovich continued his brief by stating, “My office opened these investigations and pursued these settlements to protect civil rights and ensure businesses offer their services and products based on equal and neutral criteria.”  

The controversial case is just one more example of so-called reverse discrimination in the United States, which refers to discrimination cases against members of a majority or dominant group, such as whites, in favor of minority or historically disadvantaged groups.

This type of case is increasingly visible, especially since black rights groups such as Black Lives Matter have become deeply entwined with leftist ideologies and impart the idea of confrontation and hatred against whites.