After reading the entire article, the picture has become a bit clearer.

Just to recap the ups and downs of the wishy-washy language these corporate bottomfeeders are using:

>We do not receive any compensation for orders or integrations with this feature.

So gogle states that they made this without any intention of compensation.

>While The Ordering App was initially set up to take a percentage of sales,

Okay, no. So they have* received compensation for this, but intend to never receive profit in the future?

>gogle waived it “to help support restaurants affected during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Again, no. So they were* charging, and were collecting exactly the fees they said they weren't, but now they've stopped... "'cuz covid or whatever. See how loving and giving your global overlord is treating its filthy, disgusting peasants? :^)"

Basically, gogle waived the fee because they can afford to - for now - and want customers to get accustomed to using it before* they start charging for it (again) after it's reached some predefined metric. How gracious of them to deceive us with such carefully crafted lies.

>Companies that have completed the “Order Online” setup with gogle can also direct customers to their own online ordering services.

Okay, so this only* impacts companies that want to participate in this stupid online ordering setup?

>If restaurants haven’t completed the setup, gogle appears to create a page anyway...

Okay, so no. This isn't just people who want to participate. Whether or not a restaurant has any* interest whatsoever in a listing on gogle, their (potential) customers will be given the impression that the restaurant has an online ordering feature.

>...It’s unclear how that happens, though it’s possible that a restaurant’s appearance in a delivery app is what triggers it.

So, presumably, NO ONE at gogle knows how or why this happens, or at least, no one is unwilling to say how or why this happens because they're whorish enough to keep their scummy mouths shut. So, whether or not a restaurant has ANY intention of working with 3rd parties, those 3rd parties will still try to profit off of restaurants hard work, and potentially drive away business by the higher charges associated with online ordering...

>If the restaurant has a relationship with the food delivery company, it gets charged a fee. These fees can be so high—15 to 30 percent in many cases—that the restaurant has no hope of making a profit from the order.

...and if the restaurant actively participates in asinine online ordering, the only thing they can possibly gain out of it is...

> “Rather, a restaurant’s usual goal is to capture new customers that may later place orders with the restaurant outside of the Delivery Providers’ expensive platforms.”

...blind hope that, after a customer gets accustomed to purchasing through a very specific means, that suddenly without warning, the customer will then completely change methods into paying a completely different way (in-person, over the phone, etc.)

And ultimately, whether or not they play ball with that 3rd party parasite, they're still being listed on that stupid 3rd party website, which in turn is pimping them out to daddy g*ogle for a taste of exposure, which benefits all parties. Except for the restaurant or customer.

Yeah, I can see why this resulted in a lawsuit.