alt Hacker NewsIt's unclear whether this junk fee law will have teeth. In theory, California has the same anti-drip pricing law, but restaurants have a specific carve out [1] which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print.
From what I can tell online, NYC rules won't have this carveout, but I haven't eaten there recently so I can't confirm.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Replies
Fees on one time services are not what this is targeting. This legislation is not meant to address that, and wouldn't apply to that.
They are going after recurring billing (that's what the headline means by "subscription"). It mentions things like gyms, online subscriptions etc.
It would be pretty wild if they had managed to get service fees at restaurants when they were not at all targeting service fees, restaurants or one time in person purchases.
At least in CA they need to disclose them now. Previously some restaurants would just hit you with a surprise mandatory tip.
> which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print.
I don't think I go to the same restaurants as everyone else.
The fact that Scott Wiener made that carve out for restaurants via emergency legislation (SB 1524) made my blood boil and I vowed to vote against him in any election is runs in.
The worst part of restaurant fees are the people (both owners and somehow the patrons) that will justify the existence of the fee as if it's too difficult to just print the final price in the menu.
I live in a touristy part of the world and effectively all restaurants above baseline level will have a "+7% service +11% tax" line.
To me this is clearly deceptive practice.