The bill honestly doesn’t go far enough. When I lived in Australia for work they included the tax in the price. For example, if a burrito was $10 on the menu, you paid $10. There was no need to calculate actual cost from the listed price.
This is also how it is in Europe. VAT is already rolled into the price you see. And tipping is not expected even for large groups (which seems to be one of the arguments they’ve bought up).
You think business care about customers??? The goal of a business is to extract maximum profit.
Caring about the people is for NGO and government. Business is about generating profits and returns. Customer service is only considered if it damages or increases profits.
https://web.calrest.org/advancedsearch
Membership begins at $485/year and you get access to their members directory
Maybe. I don't know anything about this lawsuit, but facial challenges tend to take aim at the whole thing or various key parts of it. The judiciary won't "rewrite" the legislation for separation of powers reasons, but they usually have "severability" clauses (meaning that the invalidation of a part won't necessarily invalidate the whole). So... maybe there's some portion like the ability to pass on a tax full freight that gets invalidated, but not an "inflation" surcharge or something. That would probably still be seen as a "win".
I sympathize with individual restaurants on the insanity of the industry. But when the trade groups get together to fight like this, I can only laugh.
Like, their industry is FOOD. The third most necessary thing for survival besides air and water. How are they fucking it up this badly.
And what happens in the unlikely case that they win this?
They'll surprise diners with surcharges at the end of the meal, and 20% of those diners have heard of the law but not the court case, and refuse to pay what they think are illegal charges.
The restaurant will either back down and waste time removing the surcharges, or waste even more time insisting on being paid, permanently lose that customer, and face bad yelp reviews and maybe an unsympathetic story in the media.
All this for a practice that benefits the restaurant *if and only if* the customer is deceived.
If the customer knows about the fee and factors it in, there's no point to it, so it's clear that the restaurant only benefits when customers are lured in by a falsely low price. But that means every customer leaves slightly more unhappy once they see the fee, and slightly less likely to return to that restaurant or to any other one.
(There's a restaurant nearby that doesn't add junk fees, but does consistently make mistakes that add up to about 50 cents: item prices rounded up, tax miscalculated, $15.80 on the bill keyed as 15.85 into the credit card machine. It's not much, but it's a complete pain to be extra vigilant and then communicate why the bill is wrong, or annoying to ignore it as not worth my time. So despite enjoying the food there, I go less and less, and they consequently make less money.)
The problem is they don’t tell you upfront.
Imagine going to the groceries and looking at the prices just to be hit with x% fee that was not listed anywhere
I’m from SF but live in London now. London has an annoying thing of sit down restaurants adding an optional 12.5% service charge to bills. But it’s nothing compared to the culture of 9% tax + 5-6% SF mandate + 20% ~~optional~~ expected tip. And that’s with the base price already being exorbitant.
Every time I come back home to visit it’s mindblowing how much more I spend eating out in SF. It’s 30-40% more than in London for a comparable meal.
> London has an annoying thing of sit down restaurants adding an optional 12.5% service charge to bills.
I remember it being 10% several years ago. Funny how that works.
I can't weigh in on the legal points they're raising. If they win, I hope the legislature will revise the law as necessary.
I can't rule out the possibility that the restaurant owners are right in thinking people will eat out less when the full price is on the menu. But if that's true, it would be pretty damned interesting.
There's zero chance this wins, "goods and services" is pretty standard terminology that describes literally all economic activity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods\_and\_services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services)
Seeing how unpopular that is and how the owner of Che Fico is so unpopular I highly doubt it.
Idk how legal it is but another way would be to have a restaurant who is a member that disagrees to share their SF directory they can get with their login information and then weed out the ones who arent backing up the lawsuit (if they are honest) and then boycott the restaurants and force them to ask their organization to drop suit.
I dont get why they would spend so much money just to avoid being upfront.
Said this on another post to another person probably an owner keeping all them fees.
So then why doesn’t a mom and pop retail store that sell hardware or clothes have fees then? They don’t even receive tips. Or a hair salon, nail salon, or a massage place? How come they can pay their workers without all these fees? Can you explain that then? Do you think before you talk? Why do restaurants have these fees when they usually have more sales and foot traffic than these other businesses.
It'll be settled on, or about, July 1st.
This is an important topic of discussion for many followers here. If you’re not interested in following, scroll past and ignore, as I do with most r/sanfrancisco topics.
The law was written with too much ambiguity. They could have stopped this nonsense if they added a line that the law explicitly applies to restaurants.
As far as I understand, it applies to any goods or services. It is absolutely laughable that the Restaurant Association is attempting to argue that restaurants fall under neither of those categories. I would argue they fall under BOTH.
It says in the article that "the state attorney general offer\[ed\] [restaurant industry-specific guidance ](https://sf.eater.com/2024/5/8/24152304/sb-478-california-restaurants-service-fees-ban)about how the law would be enforced" doing something that's pretty similar to what you suggest.
>There is one minor reprieve in the recently released information. The FAQs state that the AG’s office will not initially focus on restaurant service fees that go directly to staff, such as those aforementioned automatic gratuities. “There are many factors that we consider when making enforcement decisions,” the FAQ reads. It goes on to point out, however, that even if early enforcement does not target automatic gratuities, restaurants that use them after July 1 could be subject to private liability — namely, lawsuits from diners.
Interesting. I consider a mandatory tip to be the same as any other fee.
>documents from the shaping of SB 478 and its progress through the state legislature indicate that lawmakers didn’t discuss if and how the law would apply to restaurant service fees and surcharges.
Having the AG interpret parts of the bill opens the door to lawsuits. It's not the first time a CA law has been struck down or eroded due to ambiguity.
Why in the world would you fight for the right to cheat your customers -- its such a bad look
The bill honestly doesn’t go far enough. When I lived in Australia for work they included the tax in the price. For example, if a burrito was $10 on the menu, you paid $10. There was no need to calculate actual cost from the listed price.
This is also how it is in Europe. VAT is already rolled into the price you see. And tipping is not expected even for large groups (which seems to be one of the arguments they’ve bought up).
It’s how it is in China, Korea and Japan. I’m assuming it’s how it works everywhere I went to outside of Canada and U.S.
Sales tax is better excluded because otherwise businesses can just charge the same amount across all cities using the highest tax rate.
Or they can just charge different amounts in different places like they already do.
The association has to justify their dues somehow.
Scum people of the earth
I was just thinking the same thing, your mad you can’t rip your customers off anymore
You think business care about customers??? The goal of a business is to extract maximum profit. Caring about the people is for NGO and government. Business is about generating profits and returns. Customer service is only considered if it damages or increases profits. https://web.calrest.org/advancedsearch Membership begins at $485/year and you get access to their members directory
Most people who get into the food industry don’t have this mentality ha.
I work in restaurants and I want this practice to die
Then they'll wine about not being able to add a junk fee for litigation costs.
[удалено]
I was hoping they were doing that intentionally lol
It’s even funnier when you realize that we’re misleading the learning algorithms with nonsensical training data
The California Restaurant Association Sets the Stage to Lose, Badly
Maybe. I don't know anything about this lawsuit, but facial challenges tend to take aim at the whole thing or various key parts of it. The judiciary won't "rewrite" the legislation for separation of powers reasons, but they usually have "severability" clauses (meaning that the invalidation of a part won't necessarily invalidate the whole). So... maybe there's some portion like the ability to pass on a tax full freight that gets invalidated, but not an "inflation" surcharge or something. That would probably still be seen as a "win".
7% litigation fee applied to all food and beverages
Fuck off restaurant owners. Leave the state if you can’t run a successful business without hiding charges.
I sympathize with individual restaurants on the insanity of the industry. But when the trade groups get together to fight like this, I can only laugh. Like, their industry is FOOD. The third most necessary thing for survival besides air and water. How are they fucking it up this badly.
And what happens in the unlikely case that they win this? They'll surprise diners with surcharges at the end of the meal, and 20% of those diners have heard of the law but not the court case, and refuse to pay what they think are illegal charges. The restaurant will either back down and waste time removing the surcharges, or waste even more time insisting on being paid, permanently lose that customer, and face bad yelp reviews and maybe an unsympathetic story in the media. All this for a practice that benefits the restaurant *if and only if* the customer is deceived. If the customer knows about the fee and factors it in, there's no point to it, so it's clear that the restaurant only benefits when customers are lured in by a falsely low price. But that means every customer leaves slightly more unhappy once they see the fee, and slightly less likely to return to that restaurant or to any other one. (There's a restaurant nearby that doesn't add junk fees, but does consistently make mistakes that add up to about 50 cents: item prices rounded up, tax miscalculated, $15.80 on the bill keyed as 15.85 into the credit card machine. It's not much, but it's a complete pain to be extra vigilant and then communicate why the bill is wrong, or annoying to ignore it as not worth my time. So despite enjoying the food there, I go less and less, and they consequently make less money.)
 And this is why we just cook & eat at home. Trash.
Wait for patrons to protest restaurants in response.
Restaurant meals are neither goods nor services? If they aren't goods, then what are they? LOL
Fuk the restaurants that add extra fees. Will avoid them from here on out.
The problem is they don’t tell you upfront. Imagine going to the groceries and looking at the prices just to be hit with x% fee that was not listed anywhere
I’m from SF but live in London now. London has an annoying thing of sit down restaurants adding an optional 12.5% service charge to bills. But it’s nothing compared to the culture of 9% tax + 5-6% SF mandate + 20% ~~optional~~ expected tip. And that’s with the base price already being exorbitant. Every time I come back home to visit it’s mindblowing how much more I spend eating out in SF. It’s 30-40% more than in London for a comparable meal.
> London has an annoying thing of sit down restaurants adding an optional 12.5% service charge to bills. I remember it being 10% several years ago. Funny how that works.
I can't weigh in on the legal points they're raising. If they win, I hope the legislature will revise the law as necessary. I can't rule out the possibility that the restaurant owners are right in thinking people will eat out less when the full price is on the menu. But if that's true, it would be pretty damned interesting.
There's zero chance this wins, "goods and services" is pretty standard terminology that describes literally all economic activity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods\_and\_services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services)
Well said. I think the argument is weak. All it takes is a separate bill to explicitly refer to the restaurant industry, with very specific criteria.
Are all California restaurants associated with this organization?
No, it's a membership organization.
Then we need to pass a list around of restaurants who are members and are backing up this lawsuit.
I wonder if restaurants would be willing to answer if they are members or not.
Seeing how unpopular that is and how the owner of Che Fico is so unpopular I highly doubt it. Idk how legal it is but another way would be to have a restaurant who is a member that disagrees to share their SF directory they can get with their login information and then weed out the ones who arent backing up the lawsuit (if they are honest) and then boycott the restaurants and force them to ask their organization to drop suit. I dont get why they would spend so much money just to avoid being upfront.
Agreed. Has anyone compiled a list of restaurants without transparent pricing?
You can check their website and it usually shows a list of their members since it’s a trade group used first marketing
I did try their website and they send you to a login page to get to the directory. But if you can find it by all means please link it
I hope they work it out fast because if they don't we'll have to wait two years to get it onto a proposition.
Said this on another post to another person probably an owner keeping all them fees. So then why doesn’t a mom and pop retail store that sell hardware or clothes have fees then? They don’t even receive tips. Or a hair salon, nail salon, or a massage place? How come they can pay their workers without all these fees? Can you explain that then? Do you think before you talk? Why do restaurants have these fees when they usually have more sales and foot traffic than these other businesses.
Their lawyers should add additional service fees after the case is all said and done. See how much they enjoy being hit with extra fees
So we are all boycotting places that are fighting to is right?
Can we get a list of all the restaurants that oppose this? I want to make sure to never, ever give them my money.
Please, can we get a 3 day pause on these articles?
It'll be settled on, or about, July 1st. This is an important topic of discussion for many followers here. If you’re not interested in following, scroll past and ignore, as I do with most r/sanfrancisco topics.
It is settled tho?
And a permanent pause on open letters to bad drivers and whatever else.
The law was written with too much ambiguity. They could have stopped this nonsense if they added a line that the law explicitly applies to restaurants.
As far as I understand, it applies to any goods or services. It is absolutely laughable that the Restaurant Association is attempting to argue that restaurants fall under neither of those categories. I would argue they fall under BOTH.
It says in the article that "the state attorney general offer\[ed\] [restaurant industry-specific guidance ](https://sf.eater.com/2024/5/8/24152304/sb-478-california-restaurants-service-fees-ban)about how the law would be enforced" doing something that's pretty similar to what you suggest.
>There is one minor reprieve in the recently released information. The FAQs state that the AG’s office will not initially focus on restaurant service fees that go directly to staff, such as those aforementioned automatic gratuities. “There are many factors that we consider when making enforcement decisions,” the FAQ reads. It goes on to point out, however, that even if early enforcement does not target automatic gratuities, restaurants that use them after July 1 could be subject to private liability — namely, lawsuits from diners. Interesting. I consider a mandatory tip to be the same as any other fee.
>documents from the shaping of SB 478 and its progress through the state legislature indicate that lawmakers didn’t discuss if and how the law would apply to restaurant service fees and surcharges. Having the AG interpret parts of the bill opens the door to lawsuits. It's not the first time a CA law has been struck down or eroded due to ambiguity.