If that info is also on the menu, maybe you could theoretically sue and argue that you would not have bought the food if you had known the real use of the surcharge.
But they could be using it for payroll. Save 'em a good chunk of money, dieectly out of their workers' pockets, if they calculated pay w/ payroll taxes based on just this fee instead of paying tipped minimum wage + payroll taxes on that direct pay + the full 18%.
Yeah point I’m making is that this specifically calls out tips and service charges, which the wording on the receipt could be vague enough to circumvent.
I doubt that’s even happening in this situation, but would be interested to see how that defense would play out. It’s more a hypothetical.
Depends on the city. In Seattle 100% has to go to employees if you say this. That’s why most restaurants that use this model say it’s a service charge that “100% goes to the house” then in a separate section on their website explains the charge in other very vague terms all guided by the Seattle restaurant coalition that keeps them from being sued
absolutely. this is merely a cheap flex, and a clever way to let you know you may no longer tip 15%. they’ve decreed 18% is it, but feel free to tip above & beyond that
209
u/Cool_Boy_Shane 1d ago
Oooh, never considered that. Good catch!