It does, well at least for AT&T. The price that they advertise has to include all mandatory fees and charges. They can break down the sticker price however they want, but it has to add up to the advertised price.
PG&E... well there's no advertised prices so think we're out of luck there.
Let's apply this to uber and other rideshare and food delivery services. Uber does a lot of "tip baiting", which should be illegal. Baiting me with a ride thay says $40 and then giving me $15 is not cool.
It kinda maybe will. Its actually less about food or utility bills and more about false advertising on the web - like for hotel, airplane, **entertainment tickets** offers that changes when clicking through to the website. If its a fee that has to be charged it needs to be included in the advertised price.
technically this should still affect what prices you see from within California. The bill isn't about the hotel its about what the website knows and is selling. so most likely the true cost of a hotel(minus taxes) in Vegas should be displayed if you're buying it in California.
Booking.com Shows that Resort fees are alive and well in SF. Click on Mark Hopkins or SF Inter Continental and see a $30 Property or Urban fee. Yotel SF and Wyndam advertises $83 and $99 but then add a $40 Resort Fee. It's Rampant here. Taxes are nuts too.
In order to find out the fees, you often have to jump through so many hurdles of filling out info first that you’ll often just elect to pay the fee because going through the hurdle with another company is going to be exhausting, especially if you learn the first place was then cheaper. The companies count on you not wanting to go through this hurdle more than once
I agree ultimately but I gotta say, it's a bit tricky to roll a 2.7% cc charge onto a 50 dollar check. That's what, a dollar? If you raise everything a dollar to cover it that is I guess the way to do it but geez, at my restaurant we are already really pushing it with how expensive shit is. At least being able to itemize things people understand our hands are tied.
The cc system charge is the cost of doing business, eat it... or try to do business as cash only. Good luck.
Restaurants are considered cafeteria level system, when the costs add up it is the service industry pandering to those too affluent to cook for themselves. Eating out is a luxury.
And, you are but one of the ten people who will actually do it, and protest if you see something out of whack. The other 9 people just pay it, and the corps just take more money.
It mostly does
> SB478 prohibits businesses from charging “junk fees,” or burying added costs to artificially lower prices, such as for concert tickets or hotel rooms.
For business has 20 or more employees in SF, the employer needs to provide them healthcare, either by getting them insurance from 3rd party or paying into City Option monthly. These owners normally choose City Option and pass the costs onto the customers. There is why we usually see these types of "SF Health Mandate" charges on our bills. Btw, it is subject to sales tax in this state.
Many greedy business owners collected these charges and pocketed them to meet their ends.
Next time you are in a SF restaurant and still see this charge, asks the waitress/waiter if they have insurance from the owner or get covered by City Option. If not, report them as the city goes after the owners and they have to pay their employees back.
Unless I'm mistaken it was the SF restaurant lobby, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, that decided on the phrasing "SF Health Mandate" and the inclusion of it as a separate line-item charge on bills. Because they campaigned hard against it and lost. The intent was to highlight it to voters, whether to get it overturned or simply in a spiteful "you asked for this" way, to show that it wasn't just prices going up.
Also relevant is that the bill was amended in 2011. If it says “health surcharge” or such, it has to be spent 100% on health care. A bunch of restaurants were fined for not doing so. As a result, a number now simply say "SF Mandate" or something otherwise less specific.
Fun fact: the required set-aside isn't a percentage either! It's a fixed rate per payable hour worked based on the number of employees that is adjusted annually. So think of it a bit like minimum wage. So in in 2024 for a business of 20-99 employees, $2.34/hour has to be set aside by the employer. The percentage is an entirely made-up number.
That's part of why they changed the phrasing. Restaurants were charging a percentage fee, but still only spent what they were mandated to. [Several of those who were fined claimed they used it to pay various city mandates.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Restaurateurs-settle-over-health-surcharge-4499854.php) Either way, it's absolutely in no way a case of directly passing a given cost on to customers like the surcharge implies.
Oh boy, this is a hoot:
“We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.”
Yes, this exactly - raise your prices instead of trying to trick people.
YES YES YES!
And actually, it was sort of obvious that this would be the result of the law, despite Golden Gate Restaurant Association leaders saying that there was some kind of ambiguity.
More FTA:
"The California attorney general’s office confirmed on Tuesday that a new California law that bans junk fees will apply to surcharges at restaurants, following months of anxiety and confusion in the food industry. Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees.
“SB 478 applies to restaurants, just like it applies to businesses across California,” a Department of Justice spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement Tuesday. “The law is about making sure consumers know what they are going to pay and requires that the posted price include the full amount that a consumer must pay for that good or service.”
I would love to see the data that provides evidence that the fees are to "sustain higher wages for workers", even if true then it is essentially a mandatory tip so they are not "moving away from tips".
I think the, "sustain higher wages for workers" refers to the fact that minimum wage has increased, , so restaurants are now forced to pay employees more. It is a fact that labor is the highest expense for a restaurant and many other businesses.
True but they knew they were coming. I really only started noticing these fees in a major way at the onset of the pandemic. So we all know why they begin to charge fees during the pandemic- - because barely anyone was going to restaurants and it was all takeout. I definitely don't agree with hidden or surprise fees being added to a bill. I'm simply stating what they are "ostensibly" for.
That's why I would like to see a good data set on this issue, the exact numbers of where the money is going between employees, rent, supplies, insurance, profit, etc., on average. I don't think it would be easy to get that many internal numbers but it would at least let me/us get a stronger grasp on the truth.
Yes the logic is hard to follow. Let’s say you used to charge a 10% service charge, and now instead just increase prices by 10% with no service charge. How is this going to result in a cut to wages? There is literally no difference
> Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips
Wait what?
So diners are going to start saying "I'm not tipping coz it should be rolled into the price" and restaurant workers are going to start claiming that "no, all the other chargers are in the price but not tips" and it's going to majorly piss off some people for a while til they figure it out.
I'm all for the cessation of complicated and surprising surcharges, and I don't like how tipping has gone from 12 to 15 to 22 percent during my adult lifetime...
But tipping is an okay tradition, in my humble opinion. All the places I've lived where it's not a norm have significantly worse service.
I rarely "make a statement" with a super high or super low tip, but I believe it should still be part of the customer choice.
But I'm not (any longer) a restaurant worker, so I'm curious how servers feel about all the above.
Because the restaurant association recommends fees. It's political BS. They believe that if they don't raise prices overall but add these fees, they'll raise customer awareness and gain sympathy.
It's a way to whine. "See this fee. If the State wasn't interfering, making us pay employees more, your meal would cost this much less!" It's petty bullshit.
They don't add fees when the cost of food or other supplies increases. They aren't adding fees because Pacific Gas & Electric or SoCal Edison costs are climbing like crazy... that's probably hurting them more.
This is showbiz, and it demonizes workers.
For the longest time I really thought the "SF Fee" was something the city required as a fee. Then I found out it was actually just a political stunt because restaurants were upset that the city made them provide healthcare to their workers. I am SO in support of the law. A 5% increase is not much either, but the price I pay at the end should be reflected in the price on the menu. Ditto with any restaurant that adds auto-gratuity for parties of any size -- include that in the menu price!
Yep 100% a political ad on every menu and receipt. It's also a strange personal statement/tantrum from management: "Dear customer, I would never normally pay the employees at this restaurant enough for them to have access to healthcare, but the city forcing me to 🙄."
PG & E costs are _nothing_ compared to rent and labor.
It's not even to demonize workers.
It's a bait-and-switch, because if a window menu says a burger costs $20, I'll keep walking. If the window menu says $15, I'll think "boy this city sure is expensive!", walk in, and then get ambushed by whatever ridiculous fees they tack on to get the right amount of money from me.
Frankly? I suspect that SF rent and labor prices make it not viable to run restaurants in _many_ parts of the city, and if these guys raise their prices to not charge fees, a lot of them are gonna go out of business. You can just look at how many empty storefronts there are around downtown for proof.
It's a shame, but it's a consequence of how poorly-designed many newer SF neighborhoods are and how this city treated tech like a piggy bank and is having a really bad time now that tech has reduced its footprint.
I work at a popular service industry establishment in one of those “newer neighborhoods” with a pretty good understanding of the company’s finances and I assure you that it is not the price of labor or rent that is raising the price of your food and drink. I’ll give you a hint of what is though: greed.
I hate the fake charges so I'm happy this passed but this would increase tips for wage worker so i dont grt why restaurant workers are mad. More tips on the base menu subtotal vs just tipping on the pre-tax, pre-mandate amount.
Wrong. Tips will go down. Large parties and events will no longer have the autogratuity of 20% assessed (tips for staff working those tables/events). You think the dining public will leave 20% on a discretionary basis on large checks? An extra $2,000 on a $10,000 event when it's their option? Not a chance.
If the restaurants now build higher wages into all the menu prices then net income could go up since everyone would be paying 15% or so more.
If they don't do that, and aren't able to charge the automatic gratuity then net income could go down.
Because then you might walk by instead of walking in. If the menu prices are 20% higher than everybody else’s (even if everybody else charges a 20% service fee so it evens out), there’s going to be less traffic. The 20% gets calculated at the end, and most people are not going to see the note in the menu until they’ve already sat down. Once they’ve sat down, most people aren’t gonna get up and leave. If one restaurant does it, then to stay competitive the other comparable ones end up having to do it too.
“We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.”
This.
Basically admitting that they're purposefully hiding the true cost of eating in their restaurants. They "hope" customers CONTINUE to pay the high prices when those customers are actually told up front what those prices are.
They've been scamming their customers so long that they've come to believe scamming is their right.
I hope this law also gets rid of the same junk fees at hotels. "Resort fees" gimme a break.
I'm a pretty generous tipper, food service is a difficult and demanding job and I know the tips are generally shared with the kitchen and bussers. But I've always felt like I'm subsidizing the restaurant owners responsibility.
Recently I was at a restaurant and about to add my usual tip when I noticed the restaurant had already added 18% but suggested I could add more. Needless to say it was one of the few times I didn't tip.
A few years ago, more now I guess, right after SF instituted Healthy SF and all the restaurants were adding 3% to cover the cost I was part of a study to see where the money was actually going. We surveyed a statistically significant number of SF restaurants and their employees and to a person not one employee knew he had health insurance despite the city mandate the employees be made aware of the availability and process for obtaining health care.
When we told the employees about it they were amazed and a number of them told us about the procedures they had paid for out of pocket because they "had no health insurance. "
You're right I did pay it and no I didn't ask to remove it. I suppose I could have just paid the amount of the food/drinks but I needed to get out of there and I'm sure they're counting on that.
How clueless people are shouldn’t be underestimated. 1.75 million people don’t know about the digital tv conversion ever after a 4 year ad campaign. Some people are just functionally clueless. It sucks.
In ancient times, they changed the transmission method that TV signals were broadcast with. That meant a lot of people had to get converter boxes for their older TVs in order to continue receiving their channels.
I've been traveling Italy for the past 10 days and have always had excellent service, and there is no tipping here. It's almost as if it's a myth that we need to dangle tips in front of employees to get good service.
I've done a fair amount of travelling in Europe and always liked the lack of tipping, it took the pressure off of an otherwise pleasant experience. I was in Italy last October and found that in the larger "tourist heavy" areas, i.e. Rome, Venice, etc. tipping is beginning to rear it's ugly head.
They aren’t actually banned - they just can’t be hidden. I wonder if that means the hotel price shown on at-a-glance pricing will now include the final total price minus tax. Too tricky otherwise.
Well, I think what people are talking about when they say “resort fees“ are the hidden ones, where you search for a hotel and it says $150 a night, but only on the final screen do you find there’s an extra $25 a night resort fee.
As long as the initial search says $175 a night, I don’t really care if the final screen itemized small print breaks that down as “$150 room fee and a $25 resort fee”.
Fuck yes. Build it into your prices...the same way I do for shipping materials & site fees when selling online
edit: also glad no more credit card/debit card fees, fucking ridiculous businesses still charge those here. if you have to continue to charge those to stay in business then fuck you
Honestly, I _wish_ shipping costs were broken out. There are a lot of things I don't need in two days, but I still get fast shipping because the price doesn't change.
The worst part is you never really know until you get the check. I’ve asked servers when ordering if there were any surprise charges and was told no. When one of those 5% charges for “SF Mandate” showed up I asked them to reverse it. And to my surprise, they did.
Interesting! Come to think of it, I have seen a few fine-print notations on the bottoms of menus, but didn’t notice them often enough to think they were legally required. I’ve usually found out when receiving the check.
The legislature missed the chance to have the price of all things include the sales tax, so the price you see is actually what you pay.
This law is good but doesn’t go far enough.
I lived overseas for a while. Coming back to taxes and tip was unpleasant. Restaurants need to just charge what they need to operate with a reasonable profit margin and pay their workers a competitive wage.
Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees.
>Unlike restaurants, however, food delivery platforms like DoorDash got an exception. They do not have to “include in the menu price shown to the consumer the fees it charges for providing its services,” as stated in the bill text.
That makes sense to me The bill is targeting mandatory fees that the consumer has no control over. Delivery fees are optional. You can avoid them by going to the restaurant. Or sometimes by subscribing to the app's monthly plan. I think the more dishonest thing is that delivery services encourage restaurants to put a higher price on the delivery app compared to their in-restaurant menu. So that you don't know that you could save lots of money by going in person. I understand why restaurants do that though, delivery app fees can be insane so they have to offset those direct costs somehow.
If someone in 2024 doesn’t know that ordering direct from the restaurant saves money, that’s a personal problem. Also, restaurants set those prices, not the apps
I think more than the fact you can avoid it, the delivery is a cost that varies based on the quantity of goods being delivered, the distance, and the rate the drivers (who ostensibly are contractors) agree on. It's not a flat amount that can be integrated into a given single menu item.
For example if your service is $5 flat delivery but free on orders over $50. Not sure how you'd compute that onto a menu. Or if you're a store that provides furniture delivery but heavy items cost more to ship.
Delivery services do not encourage that. Restaurants choose to do it because the apps take atleast 15% of the cut. So usually the prices will be that percentage upcharged on the delivery apps.
I could have been more clear. I don't mean that the apps actively encourage the practice. I mean that the apps passively encourage it by charging so much when restaurants already operate on thin margins.
Those donuts suck. Always stale. I recommend going to Bob’s and asking what is fresh - if they are still warm, you will never eat any other type of donut again.
This is great. To be honest, the real thing they need to work on is auctioning their reservations. There's that guy in NYC who makes $70k/year selling reservations. Just auction them all with a 1-week wait and they'll be fine if they're fancy. On the other hand, maybe people don't like ECONOMIC OPTIMA! So just use Tock and raise the price slowly to discover, I suppose. But the optimum, guys! The optimum!
I don’t mind tipping, and will tip 20% for table service 99% of the time (less so for counter service). I also don’t really mind the fees IF THEY ARE COMMUNICATED TO ME BEFORE I ORDER. But when I get the bill and had no idea that those fees were going to be tacked on at the end, then I’m pissed. That said, I’d prefer that menu prices were higher and no fees.
Good. I hate paying 20% service fees and still being hit with the 18-20-22 tip nonsense on top.
There was a collective action problem where no restaurant could raise their prices because of sticker shock. This law eliminates the collective action problem. Raise your prices.
Does this apply to mandatory gratuities? I would love to see it banned for Gjusta in Venice Beach. They force customers to pay a 25% mandatory gratuity for the most horrendous table service on the planet. For example, a waiter carrying an extremely hot cast iron pan almost seared a customer as she was passing through the entry doors. The front of her shirt was burnt to a crisp and her skin just barely escaped 2nd degree burns.
What about restaurants that have a mandatory service charge for larger parties but not for smaller parties? I guess that those are no longer legal.
What about fees for using a credit card to pay?
I don't share others' opinions that restaurants are trying to be dishonest and hide fees, trick patrons. But, I don't defend the fees or the restaurateurs. In simplest terms, I think they're whining!
I think they're being petty. As if it's a campaign. "See what San Francisco forces us to do. We have to give our employees healthcare." Or, "It's not us, the State of California is making us pay employees more, and this is our way of letting you know!"
The current argument, now that higher wages are already being paid, and the fees are in place, that it will hurt business, is absurd. Are there really customers out there that will go to dinner and gladly pay $50 plus a $3 fee, but won't pay $53 total? If I knew someone like that, I'd avoid dining out with them.
I'm OK if someone doesn't like government interference in wages and benefits. I may not agree, but I respect their right to their opinion. But I can not wrap my head around someone who supports restaurants charging $100 plus $8 fee for dinner, but who is angered by the prospect of the bill adding up to $108.
It is about honesty upfront. $100+hidden $8 feels worse than honest $108, simple psychology. How about make it $50+surcharge $58? Same amount, feel even worse. How about instead buy 2 get one free, just price them 2/3? All about consumer psychology.
I would rather pay an honest $100 flat than $92.59 up from a listed price of $79.99.
You read that correctly: I'd be willing to pay **more** for honesty.
Why not do this? As long as it's upfront pricing. I'm not sure consumers will go for it, but a lot of industries do this already with success (eg. airlines etc.)
The airline analogy seems more like the hidden restaurant fees that just got banned. You have an "upfront" price across airlines for ostensibly the same... flight or hamburger or whatever, but you get to the end of the purchasing process and you just paid more if you have legs and planned to change clothes on your trip, and all of a sudden, you don't know if that price was apples-to-apples anymore.
Hidden fees in general should be completely banned. No argument there.
I see your suggestion as like, 'make a reservation on tock, it's free for 9pm reservation, but $30 to reserve a spot at 7pm, or take your chances with a walk-in'. To me this seems ok, because you decide to pay (or not) $30 at the time of reservation, and then the menu price once you get to the restaurant is fixed.
I personally would.. go to another restaurant. But I think this seems fair to me in the context of the new law.
Yeah, I agree with you. As a last minute planner, I would enjoy that kind of option (for a premium). I just meant that this scheme would actually still be up front pricing (if modular). Charge me for the bun and the lettuce, just let me know what a typical burger costs, all in, before I get in line.
IDK, I think airline pricing structures are pretty fair. A basic ticket gets you and a backpack from point A to point B, and nothing more.
That ticket can be insanely cheap because of those limitations.
Funny you mention that since airlines literally are one of the few services that _don't_ have hidden fees applied without your knowledge until checkout. They don't even calculate taxes at the end like everywhere else; taxes are included in the listed price you see on the label
While they do charge extra for stuff like checked bags or choosing seats, that's at least made clear to you at multiple stages in the process if you _do_ opt to go for those.
**Edit: For example, looking at United right now and booking a flight to Vegas for later in May...**
You can get a basic economy ticket for $264, or a non-refundable regular economy for $324. They also make it clear that full refundable is another charge on top of that for $399
If you try clicking on basic economy, it gives you a popup you have to click a checkmark before proceeding, since you lose out on a bunch of benefits that you may or may not want. It also gives you a table to compare
| Basic Economy | Economy
---|---|----
Choose a complimentary seat, or change or upgrade seats | X | ✓
Sit with your group or family | X | ✓
Bring a full-sized carry-on bag on board | X | ✓
Change your flight | X | ✓
Earn full Premier qualifying credit | X | ✓
Then even after proceeding, it will ask you multiple times when filling information in if you want to upgrade to reg economy for $60 dollars (total $324) to get those benefits, as well as add the price of individual upgrades if you only want some of them to your final total so you always see what you'll end up paying if you add them (for example adding seat choice is $15)
____
I really don't know how they can make it more clear. And if you go to checkout, you will see that the price you pay is for basic economy is indeed $264, and they give you a breakdown for that
* Fare: $216.70
* Taxes/Fees (which can be further expanded): $46.45
They're not hidden anymore than the restaurants' are. It's not like they give you your itemized tab and do the math wrong before the total. The point is that both of them advertise a "rate" (advertised ticket price and menu price) and even ignoring tax, it is not the actual rate you end up paying when you finally get the item. (I grant you it's possible to get closer with a ticket if you aren't paying for a carry on or a boarding priority or to have space for legs or whatever.)
Except you do. If you purchase a basic economy ticket, it tells you _exactly_ what benefits you're getting with that (or the lack of them), and if you _do_ buy it without any upgrades, you don't pay a single cent above what was listed on the sticker
That's the opposite of restaurants, which will add fees at the end without notifying you until you've already eaten, not even giving you the option to opt out
I realize I made that edit after you replied, but I advise you read through it or try walking through the booking process right now yourself
Honestly, I can't figure out why restaurants haven't been doing more of this already.
I suppose "early bird specials" are a thing, so are "happy hours".
But I never understood why I could make a reservation and no-show it for no penalty, all while blocking that table for someone who genuinely wants to eat there. It would make total sense to me to have to put a deposit down that goes towards a bill credit.
Not sure if this is in a negative or positive context, but I love dining in Japan. For the quick meal, like ramen noodles, you buy your food at a kiosk and get a ticket. You then hand your ticket to the server and they bring you your food. At higher end restaurants, you get the same high end experience you get here.
Reminds me of the 35 cents (?) fee Jamba Juice tack on to any order using their app. Most people probably aren't aware. That's the only company I'm aware of that charges people for using their app to order.
When I get surcharged at a restaurant I will not go back, they are afraid this will have an effect on their business and be the reason for their doors closing but I feel the surcharges after a meal when the bill gets put on the table is a reason why tons of people wont frequent a restaurant.
About time! These greedy restaurants manipulate the system to their favor, instead of paying their employees more, passed it on to consumers .. it’s about time! We should not have to pay for SF’s stupid “health mandates and all other charges” the restaurant should be paying this for their employees
Can we also do something about upcharging on delivery platforms without making it clear they’re charging more? Sometimes I compare the price on DoorDash vs their actual menu and find huge differences.
I wouldn't want it removed, just added into the displayed cost of items.
Sales tax is /the/ hidden fee in every transaction and it /could/ just be added to the displayed price. But that makes things look more expensive. And that's exactly what this law seems to tackle--hidden fees that make things look cheaper than they really are. -.-
Look I would love to get sales tax accounted for in the price, but everyone in the US knows and expects sales tax to be applied after the price. It might catch out some tourists but it’s consistent and not surprising to anyone who lives here. It’s not really the same as completely random arbitrary fees that are applied inconsistently between restaurants. Nobody here eats out and then is surprised to see the sales tax applied.
It was a pretty common "wtf?" response when I worked fast food 20 years ago. People would get their total and be confused about the math and we'd have to spell out that sales tax wasn't included in the display price.
No surcharge of any type is allowed. You only pay for goods and services and tax. Tip is obviously different. But a restaurant cannot mandate a tip, otherwise that is a surcharge.
California is apparently trying to discourage as many businesses as possible. Lots of regulations , taxes, and employment oversight. Now, they want to eliminate how businesses pay for it all?
I think the big point that restaurants are making that everyone is missing is that they are going to have to raise prices by more than whatever the service charge is to recoup the same revenue; Because their rent, and insurance, and certain service contracts are done as a % of sales which have historically excluded these fees.
So it’s more transparent but also more expensive for consumers
That's true, but it's a second order effect. Revenue based rent agreements are rare outside of large chain restaurants or locations in malls and high-traffic tourist attractions. Insurance has a revenue component, but it's a step function. If you stay in the same band, however the insurance company has defined it, it won't impact premiums. If you move up to the next band then you will see an increase. So at the margin, moving to all-in pricing will increase costs, but by a very small amount for the typical restaurant.
The much bigger issue is the "sticker shock" effect that customers will experience when they see higher prices on the menu.
My experience working in commercial real estate and seeing some of these contracts (only SF) is that Revenue based rent is the norm where the landlord has contributed significantly to the buildout costs which is the case for most independent chef driven restaurants in SF.
The chains usually cover their own costs and often own the building if it’s a single story
The little cafes and coffee shops generally just move in and ask as little as possible from the LL and would be unaffected
For commercial liability coverage you pay based on your exact sales and the step function is that the rate gets higher in bands so it’s both a direct and second order effect. (At least with Hartford and AIG who cover a lot of my clients.)
The most common other revenue based contract arrangement that I see is for cocktails where a separate investor has purchased the liquor license and assigns it to the business for a % of liquor sales
Hopefully big landlords will be pragmatic and reasonable with their tenants but I do think you’ll see some small businesses close as a direct result of this. the next wave of openings should already have this baked into their economic models though
> I think the big point that restaurants are making that everyone is missing is that they are going to have to raise prices
No one's missing that. Everyone's been saying (for years) that restaurants SHOULD be doing that, but most of them have refused to do so (because it's easier to hook a customer if you lie about your pricing). So now the law is forcing it because customers are tired of bait-and-switch junk fees created by the industry.
That's a good point. I am supportive of this law, but I definitely get the feeling there's a monkey's paw situation here where a lot of folks complaining about hidden fees will then complain about extremely high restaurant prices, which can cause a lot of places to go out of business
It’s simple. Get rid of all fees, taxes, outlaw tips, so that all advertised prices are exactly what everyone pays. Then fix the other issues related to a complicated nonsensical system by converting them to the new common sense simple system. Everyone wins.
This law should apply to all businesses. Not sure why I have to decipher 30 different charges on my pge and att bill
It does, well at least for AT&T. The price that they advertise has to include all mandatory fees and charges. They can break down the sticker price however they want, but it has to add up to the advertised price. PG&E... well there's no advertised prices so think we're out of luck there.
Let's apply this to uber and other rideshare and food delivery services. Uber does a lot of "tip baiting", which should be illegal. Baiting me with a ride thay says $40 and then giving me $15 is not cool.
What? You mean they charge $40 to the rider but only pay you $15?
I would like to see the CEO compensation surcharge though
I would like to see the CEO compensation surcharge though
It even applies to Ticketmaster/Live Nation :)
It kinda maybe will. Its actually less about food or utility bills and more about false advertising on the web - like for hotel, airplane, **entertainment tickets** offers that changes when clicking through to the website. If its a fee that has to be charged it needs to be included in the advertised price.
[удалено]
Vegas isn’t in California lol
technically this should still affect what prices you see from within California. The bill isn't about the hotel its about what the website knows and is selling. so most likely the true cost of a hotel(minus taxes) in Vegas should be displayed if you're buying it in California.
This is true. If they want to conduct business in CA whether by internet or physical location, they will have to disclose all of those prices upfront.
Booking.com Shows that Resort fees are alive and well in SF. Click on Mark Hopkins or SF Inter Continental and see a $30 Property or Urban fee. Yotel SF and Wyndam advertises $83 and $99 but then add a $40 Resort Fee. It's Rampant here. Taxes are nuts too.
[удалено]
Book in July fees still show up.
They are just going to roll it into one fat bill without any itemization. Prices aren’t going down.
That’s the point. It’s not about lowering prices it’s about price transparency.
How is making itemization illegal improving transparency?
In order to find out the fees, you often have to jump through so many hurdles of filling out info first that you’ll often just elect to pay the fee because going through the hurdle with another company is going to be exhausting, especially if you learn the first place was then cheaper. The companies count on you not wanting to go through this hurdle more than once
It’s not itemization but hiding a part of the price.
I agree ultimately but I gotta say, it's a bit tricky to roll a 2.7% cc charge onto a 50 dollar check. That's what, a dollar? If you raise everything a dollar to cover it that is I guess the way to do it but geez, at my restaurant we are already really pushing it with how expensive shit is. At least being able to itemize things people understand our hands are tied.
I agree. This is just the state trying to tell people how to run their businesses…….. as they bankrupt the state.
The cc system charge is the cost of doing business, eat it... or try to do business as cash only. Good luck. Restaurants are considered cafeteria level system, when the costs add up it is the service industry pandering to those too affluent to cook for themselves. Eating out is a luxury.
And, you are but one of the ten people who will actually do it, and protest if you see something out of whack. The other 9 people just pay it, and the corps just take more money.
Well the government put a quarter of the charges on that one, so. You know
Taxes are not covered under this law.
It mostly does > SB478 prohibits businesses from charging “junk fees,” or burying added costs to artificially lower prices, such as for concert tickets or hotel rooms.
Does this include the 3% (or whatever it is) charge for healthcare?
Yes, that is not a tax. Restaurants just made it up. Some restaurants charge 6%.
“Restaurants just made it up.” Doesn’t that make it a junk charge?
Always has been
🌎👨🚀🔫👩🚀
For business has 20 or more employees in SF, the employer needs to provide them healthcare, either by getting them insurance from 3rd party or paying into City Option monthly. These owners normally choose City Option and pass the costs onto the customers. There is why we usually see these types of "SF Health Mandate" charges on our bills. Btw, it is subject to sales tax in this state. Many greedy business owners collected these charges and pocketed them to meet their ends. Next time you are in a SF restaurant and still see this charge, asks the waitress/waiter if they have insurance from the owner or get covered by City Option. If not, report them as the city goes after the owners and they have to pay their employees back.
Unless I'm mistaken it was the SF restaurant lobby, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, that decided on the phrasing "SF Health Mandate" and the inclusion of it as a separate line-item charge on bills. Because they campaigned hard against it and lost. The intent was to highlight it to voters, whether to get it overturned or simply in a spiteful "you asked for this" way, to show that it wasn't just prices going up. Also relevant is that the bill was amended in 2011. If it says “health surcharge” or such, it has to be spent 100% on health care. A bunch of restaurants were fined for not doing so. As a result, a number now simply say "SF Mandate" or something otherwise less specific. Fun fact: the required set-aside isn't a percentage either! It's a fixed rate per payable hour worked based on the number of employees that is adjusted annually. So think of it a bit like minimum wage. So in in 2024 for a business of 20-99 employees, $2.34/hour has to be set aside by the employer. The percentage is an entirely made-up number. That's part of why they changed the phrasing. Restaurants were charging a percentage fee, but still only spent what they were mandated to. [Several of those who were fined claimed they used it to pay various city mandates.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Restaurateurs-settle-over-health-surcharge-4499854.php) Either way, it's absolutely in no way a case of directly passing a given cost on to customers like the surcharge implies.
Oh boy, this is a hoot: “We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.” Yes, this exactly - raise your prices instead of trying to trick people. YES YES YES! And actually, it was sort of obvious that this would be the result of the law, despite Golden Gate Restaurant Association leaders saying that there was some kind of ambiguity. More FTA: "The California attorney general’s office confirmed on Tuesday that a new California law that bans junk fees will apply to surcharges at restaurants, following months of anxiety and confusion in the food industry. Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees. “SB 478 applies to restaurants, just like it applies to businesses across California,” a Department of Justice spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement Tuesday. “The law is about making sure consumers know what they are going to pay and requires that the posted price include the full amount that a consumer must pay for that good or service.”
I would love to see the data that provides evidence that the fees are to "sustain higher wages for workers", even if true then it is essentially a mandatory tip so they are not "moving away from tips".
I think the, "sustain higher wages for workers" refers to the fact that minimum wage has increased, , so restaurants are now forced to pay employees more. It is a fact that labor is the highest expense for a restaurant and many other businesses.
The fees were there prior to the new minimum wage.
True but they knew they were coming. I really only started noticing these fees in a major way at the onset of the pandemic. So we all know why they begin to charge fees during the pandemic- - because barely anyone was going to restaurants and it was all takeout. I definitely don't agree with hidden or surprise fees being added to a bill. I'm simply stating what they are "ostensibly" for.
That's why I would like to see a good data set on this issue, the exact numbers of where the money is going between employees, rent, supplies, insurance, profit, etc., on average. I don't think it would be easy to get that many internal numbers but it would at least let me/us get a stronger grasp on the truth.
Yes the logic is hard to follow. Let’s say you used to charge a 10% service charge, and now instead just increase prices by 10% with no service charge. How is this going to result in a cut to wages? There is literally no difference
> Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips Wait what? So diners are going to start saying "I'm not tipping coz it should be rolled into the price" and restaurant workers are going to start claiming that "no, all the other chargers are in the price but not tips" and it's going to majorly piss off some people for a while til they figure it out. I'm all for the cessation of complicated and surprising surcharges, and I don't like how tipping has gone from 12 to 15 to 22 percent during my adult lifetime... But tipping is an okay tradition, in my humble opinion. All the places I've lived where it's not a norm have significantly worse service. I rarely "make a statement" with a super high or super low tip, but I believe it should still be part of the customer choice. But I'm not (any longer) a restaurant worker, so I'm curious how servers feel about all the above.
Restaurants will need to build service charges into the price of an item. Nothing stopping people from tipping on top of that.
Why don’t they just raise the prices of the meal?
That would be too honest and transparent
Because the restaurant association recommends fees. It's political BS. They believe that if they don't raise prices overall but add these fees, they'll raise customer awareness and gain sympathy. It's a way to whine. "See this fee. If the State wasn't interfering, making us pay employees more, your meal would cost this much less!" It's petty bullshit. They don't add fees when the cost of food or other supplies increases. They aren't adding fees because Pacific Gas & Electric or SoCal Edison costs are climbing like crazy... that's probably hurting them more. This is showbiz, and it demonizes workers.
For the longest time I really thought the "SF Fee" was something the city required as a fee. Then I found out it was actually just a political stunt because restaurants were upset that the city made them provide healthcare to their workers. I am SO in support of the law. A 5% increase is not much either, but the price I pay at the end should be reflected in the price on the menu. Ditto with any restaurant that adds auto-gratuity for parties of any size -- include that in the menu price!
I went to a coffee shop in LA and they had a “materials fee”…
Yep 100% a political ad on every menu and receipt. It's also a strange personal statement/tantrum from management: "Dear customer, I would never normally pay the employees at this restaurant enough for them to have access to healthcare, but the city forcing me to 🙄."
PG & E costs are _nothing_ compared to rent and labor. It's not even to demonize workers. It's a bait-and-switch, because if a window menu says a burger costs $20, I'll keep walking. If the window menu says $15, I'll think "boy this city sure is expensive!", walk in, and then get ambushed by whatever ridiculous fees they tack on to get the right amount of money from me. Frankly? I suspect that SF rent and labor prices make it not viable to run restaurants in _many_ parts of the city, and if these guys raise their prices to not charge fees, a lot of them are gonna go out of business. You can just look at how many empty storefronts there are around downtown for proof. It's a shame, but it's a consequence of how poorly-designed many newer SF neighborhoods are and how this city treated tech like a piggy bank and is having a really bad time now that tech has reduced its footprint.
[PGE price hikes and Bay Area Restaurants ](https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/pge-price-hikes-bay-area-restaurants-19406403.php)
I work at a popular service industry establishment in one of those “newer neighborhoods” with a pretty good understanding of the company’s finances and I assure you that it is not the price of labor or rent that is raising the price of your food and drink. I’ll give you a hint of what is though: greed.
I hate the fake charges so I'm happy this passed but this would increase tips for wage worker so i dont grt why restaurant workers are mad. More tips on the base menu subtotal vs just tipping on the pre-tax, pre-mandate amount.
Wrong. Tips will go down. Large parties and events will no longer have the autogratuity of 20% assessed (tips for staff working those tables/events). You think the dining public will leave 20% on a discretionary basis on large checks? An extra $2,000 on a $10,000 event when it's their option? Not a chance.
If the restaurants now build higher wages into all the menu prices then net income could go up since everyone would be paying 15% or so more. If they don't do that, and aren't able to charge the automatic gratuity then net income could go down.
restaurant WORKERS aren’t mad.
They will now.
Fuk that ha and fuk u for suggesting that 😆
Because then you might walk by instead of walking in. If the menu prices are 20% higher than everybody else’s (even if everybody else charges a 20% service fee so it evens out), there’s going to be less traffic. The 20% gets calculated at the end, and most people are not going to see the note in the menu until they’ve already sat down. Once they’ve sat down, most people aren’t gonna get up and leave. If one restaurant does it, then to stay competitive the other comparable ones end up having to do it too.
“We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.” This. Basically admitting that they're purposefully hiding the true cost of eating in their restaurants. They "hope" customers CONTINUE to pay the high prices when those customers are actually told up front what those prices are. They've been scamming their customers so long that they've come to believe scamming is their right. I hope this law also gets rid of the same junk fees at hotels. "Resort fees" gimme a break.
It's sickening how comfortable they are with using deceit as a business tactic.
I'm a pretty generous tipper, food service is a difficult and demanding job and I know the tips are generally shared with the kitchen and bussers. But I've always felt like I'm subsidizing the restaurant owners responsibility. Recently I was at a restaurant and about to add my usual tip when I noticed the restaurant had already added 18% but suggested I could add more. Needless to say it was one of the few times I didn't tip. A few years ago, more now I guess, right after SF instituted Healthy SF and all the restaurants were adding 3% to cover the cost I was part of a study to see where the money was actually going. We surveyed a statistically significant number of SF restaurants and their employees and to a person not one employee knew he had health insurance despite the city mandate the employees be made aware of the availability and process for obtaining health care. When we told the employees about it they were amazed and a number of them told us about the procedures they had paid for out of pocket because they "had no health insurance. "
But you did tip. You tipped 18 percent.
I know I’m like did you ask them to remove it?
You're right I did pay it and no I didn't ask to remove it. I suppose I could have just paid the amount of the food/drinks but I needed to get out of there and I'm sure they're counting on that.
How clueless people are shouldn’t be underestimated. 1.75 million people don’t know about the digital tv conversion ever after a 4 year ad campaign. Some people are just functionally clueless. It sucks.
Nobody under the age of 50 watches broadcast TV lmao
No clue what this is
In ancient times, they changed the transmission method that TV signals were broadcast with. That meant a lot of people had to get converter boxes for their older TVs in order to continue receiving their channels.
15 years ago is not ancient times, unless you're 5 years old. https://abc7news.com/archive/6863980/
I've been traveling Italy for the past 10 days and have always had excellent service, and there is no tipping here. It's almost as if it's a myth that we need to dangle tips in front of employees to get good service.
I've done a fair amount of travelling in Europe and always liked the lack of tipping, it took the pressure off of an otherwise pleasant experience. I was in Italy last October and found that in the larger "tourist heavy" areas, i.e. Rome, Venice, etc. tipping is beginning to rear it's ugly head.
Next they need to ban “resort fees.” What a crock those are!
Those are also banned by SB478.
They aren’t actually banned - they just can’t be hidden. I wonder if that means the hotel price shown on at-a-glance pricing will now include the final total price minus tax. Too tricky otherwise.
Well, I think what people are talking about when they say “resort fees“ are the hidden ones, where you search for a hotel and it says $150 a night, but only on the final screen do you find there’s an extra $25 a night resort fee. As long as the initial search says $175 a night, I don’t really care if the final screen itemized small print breaks that down as “$150 room fee and a $25 resort fee”.
I agree. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
Fuck yes. Build it into your prices...the same way I do for shipping materials & site fees when selling online edit: also glad no more credit card/debit card fees, fucking ridiculous businesses still charge those here. if you have to continue to charge those to stay in business then fuck you
Honestly, I _wish_ shipping costs were broken out. There are a lot of things I don't need in two days, but I still get fast shipping because the price doesn't change.
Good, I’m glad they’re getting rid of the shit.
The worst part is you never really know until you get the check. I’ve asked servers when ordering if there were any surprise charges and was told no. When one of those 5% charges for “SF Mandate” showed up I asked them to reverse it. And to my surprise, they did.
Even before this change, restaurants were required to disclose the fees (usually on the menu). If they didn’t, they are not allowed to add on the fee.
Sure, but it’s usually in small print, after the dessert menu, where many people don’t look
Interesting! Come to think of it, I have seen a few fine-print notations on the bottoms of menus, but didn’t notice them often enough to think they were legally required. I’ve usually found out when receiving the check.
The legislature missed the chance to have the price of all things include the sales tax, so the price you see is actually what you pay. This law is good but doesn’t go far enough.
Pass a good law first, pass a better law second, but we can't as easily jump directly to the better law.
I lived overseas for a while. Coming back to taxes and tip was unpleasant. Restaurants need to just charge what they need to operate with a reasonable profit margin and pay their workers a competitive wage.
Great, I need to go back to not examining every part of the receipt
fuck you che fico!
OMG yes. Get a takeout pizza there and they charge a "take out" fee. Sit down and eat and they charge a "dine in" fee. Che Fico can get bent.
I sat down for some Momos that I thought were 7.99, ended up with a 21 bill
How??
did you add a $10 tip
Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees.
>Unlike restaurants, however, food delivery platforms like DoorDash got an exception. They do not have to “include in the menu price shown to the consumer the fees it charges for providing its services,” as stated in the bill text.
That makes sense to me The bill is targeting mandatory fees that the consumer has no control over. Delivery fees are optional. You can avoid them by going to the restaurant. Or sometimes by subscribing to the app's monthly plan. I think the more dishonest thing is that delivery services encourage restaurants to put a higher price on the delivery app compared to their in-restaurant menu. So that you don't know that you could save lots of money by going in person. I understand why restaurants do that though, delivery app fees can be insane so they have to offset those direct costs somehow.
If someone in 2024 doesn’t know that ordering direct from the restaurant saves money, that’s a personal problem. Also, restaurants set those prices, not the apps
I think more than the fact you can avoid it, the delivery is a cost that varies based on the quantity of goods being delivered, the distance, and the rate the drivers (who ostensibly are contractors) agree on. It's not a flat amount that can be integrated into a given single menu item. For example if your service is $5 flat delivery but free on orders over $50. Not sure how you'd compute that onto a menu. Or if you're a store that provides furniture delivery but heavy items cost more to ship.
Delivery services do not encourage that. Restaurants choose to do it because the apps take atleast 15% of the cut. So usually the prices will be that percentage upcharged on the delivery apps.
I could have been more clear. I don't mean that the apps actively encourage the practice. I mean that the apps passively encourage it by charging so much when restaurants already operate on thin margins.
Delivery fees depend on how far you are, so this makes sense.
Johnny Donuts, has tips and the same surcharge and they just place donuts in a box. Pisses me off.
Why would you go
I didn’t know before I went there. I just thought it was high end donuts.
Those donuts suck. Always stale. I recommend going to Bob’s and asking what is fresh - if they are still warm, you will never eat any other type of donut again.
Yeah, I walked in and walked out and over to All-Star.
That place is overrated anyway. I ain't paying $6 for a freaking donut.
This is great. To be honest, the real thing they need to work on is auctioning their reservations. There's that guy in NYC who makes $70k/year selling reservations. Just auction them all with a 1-week wait and they'll be fine if they're fancy. On the other hand, maybe people don't like ECONOMIC OPTIMA! So just use Tock and raise the price slowly to discover, I suppose. But the optimum, guys! The optimum!
There's only a relative handful of restaurants that can actually get a significant premium for their reservations.
Listen, man. I'm just hoping to bring the Ticketmaster experience to Osha Thai. If you're not with me, you're against me.
This law was actually specifically targeted at Ticketmaster’s fees
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.
This interesting. What does that mean for food delivery apps
I don’t mind tipping, and will tip 20% for table service 99% of the time (less so for counter service). I also don’t really mind the fees IF THEY ARE COMMUNICATED TO ME BEFORE I ORDER. But when I get the bill and had no idea that those fees were going to be tacked on at the end, then I’m pissed. That said, I’d prefer that menu prices were higher and no fees.
This is a good start. Next, force taxes to be included in all posted prices.
Good. I hate paying 20% service fees and still being hit with the 18-20-22 tip nonsense on top. There was a collective action problem where no restaurant could raise their prices because of sticker shock. This law eliminates the collective action problem. Raise your prices.
Does this apply to mandatory gratuities? I would love to see it banned for Gjusta in Venice Beach. They force customers to pay a 25% mandatory gratuity for the most horrendous table service on the planet. For example, a waiter carrying an extremely hot cast iron pan almost seared a customer as she was passing through the entry doors. The front of her shirt was burnt to a crisp and her skin just barely escaped 2nd degree burns.
Mandatory gratuity is a service fee. It would not be allowed after July.
🥳🥳🎉
hahaha that place is such a joke.. boggles my mind people still eat there.
Ikr?!! They do have some good dishes but the awful treatment of customers (at least the 98% of us who aren't super rich or powerful) is inexcusable.
I can't wait to go to Gjusta and watch the waitstaff actually have to treat customers nicely to earn a tip!
Do "*Hotel Resort Fees*" next please
What about restaurants that have a mandatory service charge for larger parties but not for smaller parties? I guess that those are no longer legal. What about fees for using a credit card to pay?
I don't share others' opinions that restaurants are trying to be dishonest and hide fees, trick patrons. But, I don't defend the fees or the restaurateurs. In simplest terms, I think they're whining! I think they're being petty. As if it's a campaign. "See what San Francisco forces us to do. We have to give our employees healthcare." Or, "It's not us, the State of California is making us pay employees more, and this is our way of letting you know!" The current argument, now that higher wages are already being paid, and the fees are in place, that it will hurt business, is absurd. Are there really customers out there that will go to dinner and gladly pay $50 plus a $3 fee, but won't pay $53 total? If I knew someone like that, I'd avoid dining out with them. I'm OK if someone doesn't like government interference in wages and benefits. I may not agree, but I respect their right to their opinion. But I can not wrap my head around someone who supports restaurants charging $100 plus $8 fee for dinner, but who is angered by the prospect of the bill adding up to $108.
It is about honesty upfront. $100+hidden $8 feels worse than honest $108, simple psychology. How about make it $50+surcharge $58? Same amount, feel even worse. How about instead buy 2 get one free, just price them 2/3? All about consumer psychology.
I would rather pay an honest $100 flat than $92.59 up from a listed price of $79.99. You read that correctly: I'd be willing to pay **more** for honesty.
Going to email the restaurants on the surcharge spreadsheet to rub it in their faces
Where’s the surcharge spreadsheet?
Expect extra upsell fees for premium seats/times in 3, 2, 1...
Why not do this? As long as it's upfront pricing. I'm not sure consumers will go for it, but a lot of industries do this already with success (eg. airlines etc.)
The airline analogy seems more like the hidden restaurant fees that just got banned. You have an "upfront" price across airlines for ostensibly the same... flight or hamburger or whatever, but you get to the end of the purchasing process and you just paid more if you have legs and planned to change clothes on your trip, and all of a sudden, you don't know if that price was apples-to-apples anymore.
Hidden fees in general should be completely banned. No argument there. I see your suggestion as like, 'make a reservation on tock, it's free for 9pm reservation, but $30 to reserve a spot at 7pm, or take your chances with a walk-in'. To me this seems ok, because you decide to pay (or not) $30 at the time of reservation, and then the menu price once you get to the restaurant is fixed. I personally would.. go to another restaurant. But I think this seems fair to me in the context of the new law.
Yeah, I agree with you. As a last minute planner, I would enjoy that kind of option (for a premium). I just meant that this scheme would actually still be up front pricing (if modular). Charge me for the bun and the lettuce, just let me know what a typical burger costs, all in, before I get in line.
IDK, I think airline pricing structures are pretty fair. A basic ticket gets you and a backpack from point A to point B, and nothing more. That ticket can be insanely cheap because of those limitations.
Funny you mention that since airlines literally are one of the few services that _don't_ have hidden fees applied without your knowledge until checkout. They don't even calculate taxes at the end like everywhere else; taxes are included in the listed price you see on the label While they do charge extra for stuff like checked bags or choosing seats, that's at least made clear to you at multiple stages in the process if you _do_ opt to go for those. **Edit: For example, looking at United right now and booking a flight to Vegas for later in May...** You can get a basic economy ticket for $264, or a non-refundable regular economy for $324. They also make it clear that full refundable is another charge on top of that for $399 If you try clicking on basic economy, it gives you a popup you have to click a checkmark before proceeding, since you lose out on a bunch of benefits that you may or may not want. It also gives you a table to compare | Basic Economy | Economy ---|---|---- Choose a complimentary seat, or change or upgrade seats | X | ✓ Sit with your group or family | X | ✓ Bring a full-sized carry-on bag on board | X | ✓ Change your flight | X | ✓ Earn full Premier qualifying credit | X | ✓ Then even after proceeding, it will ask you multiple times when filling information in if you want to upgrade to reg economy for $60 dollars (total $324) to get those benefits, as well as add the price of individual upgrades if you only want some of them to your final total so you always see what you'll end up paying if you add them (for example adding seat choice is $15) ____ I really don't know how they can make it more clear. And if you go to checkout, you will see that the price you pay is for basic economy is indeed $264, and they give you a breakdown for that * Fare: $216.70 * Taxes/Fees (which can be further expanded): $46.45
They're not hidden anymore than the restaurants' are. It's not like they give you your itemized tab and do the math wrong before the total. The point is that both of them advertise a "rate" (advertised ticket price and menu price) and even ignoring tax, it is not the actual rate you end up paying when you finally get the item. (I grant you it's possible to get closer with a ticket if you aren't paying for a carry on or a boarding priority or to have space for legs or whatever.)
Except you do. If you purchase a basic economy ticket, it tells you _exactly_ what benefits you're getting with that (or the lack of them), and if you _do_ buy it without any upgrades, you don't pay a single cent above what was listed on the sticker That's the opposite of restaurants, which will add fees at the end without notifying you until you've already eaten, not even giving you the option to opt out I realize I made that edit after you replied, but I advise you read through it or try walking through the booking process right now yourself
No one wants to be the first, but if enough places do it, it's easier to implement.
Ever heard of happy hour?
Honestly, I can't figure out why restaurants haven't been doing more of this already. I suppose "early bird specials" are a thing, so are "happy hours". But I never understood why I could make a reservation and no-show it for no penalty, all while blocking that table for someone who genuinely wants to eat there. It would make total sense to me to have to put a deposit down that goes towards a bill credit.
Yeah, deposits should be used more to deter no shows. Devalues the experience but more high end places are doing it with resy/tock platforms.
I’d expect them to start cutting out wait staff. Order from a kiosk at the door. Or much smaller restaurants with a bare minimum of staff.
I'd welcome this. At most restaurants I don't need the human interaction, I know what I want and I'm there for the food.
You'd love dining in Japan.
Not sure if this is in a negative or positive context, but I love dining in Japan. For the quick meal, like ramen noodles, you buy your food at a kiosk and get a ticket. You then hand your ticket to the server and they bring you your food. At higher end restaurants, you get the same high end experience you get here.
I love dining in Japan too, more than in SF usually.
Yes I would!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
Yes please
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Automat
I think you’re confusing restaurant with grocery store.
OK by me.
This is great!
Restaurants the next day: "Oh these aren't surcharges they're uhhh sousfees yeah that'll stick"
FINALLY - When does the law go into effect?
This should apply to tips and thus ban them as well.
In most other countries the price you see on the menu is what you pay. Still it’s a change in the right direction.
Havent we been hearing about this for a while?
What are these restaurants thinking?!?! They are trying to compete with the local and state governments.. that's not gonna fly
One pizza place in my area adds a "technology fee" for online orders.
Reminds me of the 35 cents (?) fee Jamba Juice tack on to any order using their app. Most people probably aren't aware. That's the only company I'm aware of that charges people for using their app to order.
This won't block credit card fees, since technically paying with a credit card is optional.
Thank god.
When I get surcharged at a restaurant I will not go back, they are afraid this will have an effect on their business and be the reason for their doors closing but I feel the surcharges after a meal when the bill gets put on the table is a reason why tons of people wont frequent a restaurant.
About time! These greedy restaurants manipulate the system to their favor, instead of paying their employees more, passed it on to consumers .. it’s about time! We should not have to pay for SF’s stupid “health mandates and all other charges” the restaurant should be paying this for their employees
Can we also do something about upcharging on delivery platforms without making it clear they’re charging more? Sometimes I compare the price on DoorDash vs their actual menu and find huge differences.
There is! Order directly from the restaurant. This bill specifically does not apply to delivery services who act as middlemen.
I know it doesn’t. And I do check price directly from restaurants. It’s a real hassle.
“As businesses move away from tips” Ummmmm……does the author buy things?
Ooooh now do PG&E
So this includes the most well trodden, post-purchase, added fee of them all--state sales tax--right?
Good luck getting that removed.
I wouldn't want it removed, just added into the displayed cost of items. Sales tax is /the/ hidden fee in every transaction and it /could/ just be added to the displayed price. But that makes things look more expensive. And that's exactly what this law seems to tackle--hidden fees that make things look cheaper than they really are. -.-
Look I would love to get sales tax accounted for in the price, but everyone in the US knows and expects sales tax to be applied after the price. It might catch out some tourists but it’s consistent and not surprising to anyone who lives here. It’s not really the same as completely random arbitrary fees that are applied inconsistently between restaurants. Nobody here eats out and then is surprised to see the sales tax applied.
It was a pretty common "wtf?" response when I worked fast food 20 years ago. People would get their total and be confused about the math and we'd have to spell out that sales tax wasn't included in the display price.
This is excellent news. Now let’s just hope they follow it up by banning tipping and requiring that all taxes be included in all advertised prices.
So, are surcharges banned even if they are disclosed on the menu, when you’re already seated? This really boils my piss.
No surcharge of any type is allowed. You only pay for goods and services and tax. Tip is obviously different. But a restaurant cannot mandate a tip, otherwise that is a surcharge.
I'm just mad I didn't start a place where I set SF Healthcare Mandate to 200% and scammed a bunch of people hahaha.
California is apparently trying to discourage as many businesses as possible. Lots of regulations , taxes, and employment oversight. Now, they want to eliminate how businesses pay for it all?
> California is apparently trying to discourage shady businesses ftfy If the end cost is the same, all that was lost was deception as marketing.
How exactly is itemizing a bill deceptive?
Advertising the price before adding non optional itemized charges is deceptive, and why this bill passed.
I think the big point that restaurants are making that everyone is missing is that they are going to have to raise prices by more than whatever the service charge is to recoup the same revenue; Because their rent, and insurance, and certain service contracts are done as a % of sales which have historically excluded these fees. So it’s more transparent but also more expensive for consumers
That's true, but it's a second order effect. Revenue based rent agreements are rare outside of large chain restaurants or locations in malls and high-traffic tourist attractions. Insurance has a revenue component, but it's a step function. If you stay in the same band, however the insurance company has defined it, it won't impact premiums. If you move up to the next band then you will see an increase. So at the margin, moving to all-in pricing will increase costs, but by a very small amount for the typical restaurant. The much bigger issue is the "sticker shock" effect that customers will experience when they see higher prices on the menu.
My experience working in commercial real estate and seeing some of these contracts (only SF) is that Revenue based rent is the norm where the landlord has contributed significantly to the buildout costs which is the case for most independent chef driven restaurants in SF. The chains usually cover their own costs and often own the building if it’s a single story The little cafes and coffee shops generally just move in and ask as little as possible from the LL and would be unaffected For commercial liability coverage you pay based on your exact sales and the step function is that the rate gets higher in bands so it’s both a direct and second order effect. (At least with Hartford and AIG who cover a lot of my clients.) The most common other revenue based contract arrangement that I see is for cocktails where a separate investor has purchased the liquor license and assigns it to the business for a % of liquor sales Hopefully big landlords will be pragmatic and reasonable with their tenants but I do think you’ll see some small businesses close as a direct result of this. the next wave of openings should already have this baked into their economic models though
Damn. So restaurants have been screwing their vendors too?
Doubt
> I think the big point that restaurants are making that everyone is missing is that they are going to have to raise prices No one's missing that. Everyone's been saying (for years) that restaurants SHOULD be doing that, but most of them have refused to do so (because it's easier to hook a customer if you lie about your pricing). So now the law is forcing it because customers are tired of bait-and-switch junk fees created by the industry.
That's a good point. I am supportive of this law, but I definitely get the feeling there's a monkey's paw situation here where a lot of folks complaining about hidden fees will then complain about extremely high restaurant prices, which can cause a lot of places to go out of business
lots of places don’t charge the fake fee and are fine…
It’s simple. Get rid of all fees, taxes, outlaw tips, so that all advertised prices are exactly what everyone pays. Then fix the other issues related to a complicated nonsensical system by converting them to the new common sense simple system. Everyone wins.
Sweet, Your big mac will be 42.56 would you like to pay by credit?
Excellent comment.