[eiopa]

In San Francisco restaurants, I’ve seen this tactic applied liberally. Maybe AirBnb and DoorDash are rubbing off on them:)

A common one sees the restaurant charge you separately for the employee health benefits, cynically marketing it to consumers as “healthy SF” and “SF health mandate”.

What’s sort of fun is that like cryptocurrencies, you can always materialize new ones out of thin air. One popular establishment demands that you pay a separate “carbon offset fee”.

[Teever]

Is it actually something mandated by the city?

If it isnt that sounds pretty damn fraudlent to me.

We have a similar issue where I am from because businesses are not required to give tips to their employees. Most people dont know about this law and a reasonable person would think that the money would go to the employees because that's what the word 'tip' means.

So in my mind any restaurant that doesn't have a sign next to the tip jar spelling out who the money is going to in this situation is commiting fraud.

The name they're choosing is intentional and the purpose is to trick you into spending your money in a way you otherwise would'nt. That's a crime.

[nonethewiser]

What law does it break and is there some precedent that this case breaks it? None of this sounds like a crime.

In terms of “SF Cares”, it sounds like its for the healthcare ordinance the city of SF passed.

[jprete]

Fraud. You’re advertising a service for one price, accepting a contract for service on that price, then charging a higher price.

[nradov]

Usually there's some little footnote on the menu or sign on the door stating the fee, so it would be impossible for a prosecutor to prove fraud. But this kind of bullshit is one of the reasons that I don't visit SF as much as I used to.

[paulmd]

> Usually there's some little footnote on the menu or sign on the door stating the fee, so it would be impossible for a prosecutor to prove fraud.

which is, of course, an outcome of the current regulatory regime.

US prices are not advertised with taxes included either - even locally, where it is obvious what the nexus is. But this is not legal in the EU. We can outlaw random footnotes being an excuse for random fees too - there is a number on the menu, that should be the price of the item. Require all prices to be inclusive of fees/taxes etc so that people can see the full, final price before they get emotionally invested/etc.

Frankly this probably would result in lower total prices for consumers - people decide to buy based on the advertised number, people are not (reliably) rational/efficient about purchasing decisions, especially in situations with highly opaque information (is the other restaurant going to tack on an even higher fee? etc). Forcing all the fees to be rolled into the final price is, just like healthcare, a win for enabling people to have the most information to make the most accurate decisions, which helps drive costs down.

[nradov]

Forcing all taxes to be itemized separately is a win for enabling people to have the most information to make the most accurate decisions. It allows them to see how much money the government is taking from them, and depending on whether they think that number should be higher or lower, allows them to make informed voting decisions. Voting is far more important than choosing which restaurant to eat at.

[nonethewiser]

Where are you from? In the US goods and services are normally quoted as one price and charged as another if there are taxes and fees. Restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, retail, etc. Everywhere basically. “Junk fees” take this further but your definition of fraud describes basically every sale already.

[Teever]

The term that OP said was used and the one that I am taking issue with is 'mandate' not 'cares.'

[jahewson]

Lying to enrich oneself is the definition of fraud.

[workingdog]

"In January 2008, the voter-approved San Francisco Health Care Ordinance went into effect, requiring any business with more than 20 employees to set aside money for their workers' health care."

It's ok for business to tell their customers why prices are increasing via line item.

[MatekCopatek]

Sure, if they actually increase the prices written on the menu. But the way I understand the parent comment, they didn't, they just tacked them on as extra fees at the end.

[eiopa]

Exactly this

[ryandrake]

Why stop there? A restaurant can have a line item in the bill for the customer’s share of the cost of:

- rent of the restaurant building

- the water bill

- the pizza oven

- the owner’s BMW

List everything! Why not?

[polygamous_bat]

Yes, and as an added bonus, following the same reasoning, the restaurant can put everything on the menu as $0! Isn’t that a brave new world.

[lukeschlather]

That's fine. But it makes sense to treat putting a price on the menu that doesn't include that fee as fraud.

[c22]

No it isn't. The cost of my widget isn't broken out to material sourcing, transportation, and other overhead. Doing it this way causes unnecessary mental gymnastics and is done for the sole purpose of creating political pressure. I don't mind companies having and sharing political opinions, but keep it off my receipt. Just put up a sign that says "prices have increased due to new regulation" and feel free to hand out pamphlets decrying the state of things, don't be disingenuous about your motives.

[ryandrake]

Exactly. If the SF restaurants OP mentions are not also itemizing all their other taxes and expenses on their customers' bills, yet singling out the “SF health mandate” one, it's pretty clear that they are just using those bills to make a passive aggressive political complaint.

Nobody cries and moans publicly in front of customers when their business license fees rise 5% or when the cost of their utilities go up, but suddenly when there is a mandate to make their employees' lives marginally better, they weep their crocodile tears all over the customers' checks.

[hyperhopper]

Not the sole purpose of creating political pressure: there is also the benefit to business of showing a customer a lower price and psychology easing them into spending more.