加州禁止大多数餐厅收取服务费和其他附加费

禁令于 7 月 1 日生效。但仍允许收取送餐费，而且至少在初期允许在大型聚会的账单上自动加收小费。

California Attorney General Rob Bonta. | Photo courtesy of the AG's office

加利福尼亚州总检察长在让餐饮业蒙在鼓里数周之后，决定禁止该州所有餐馆在菜单或菜单板上标明的价格之外收取更高的价格，这实际上宣布大多数服务费或其他附加费为非法。

该措施于 7 月 1 日生效。

至少在最初阶段，唯一的例外将是收益完全归餐厅员工所有的附加费，例如自动加在大型宴会账单上的小费。根据总检察长罗布-邦达（Rob Bonta）作出决定所依据的法案措辞，如果产生的所有资金都分配给员工，则可以继续收取服务费。

然而，作为新限制的指导意见而发布的一系列常见问题解答表明，州政府可能会取消这些例外情况。《常见问题》明确指出，餐馆可以收取与菜单上公布的价格不同的费用，但必须低于菜单上公布的价格。

此外，如果是送餐服务，餐馆可以继续收取超出所列价格的费用。指南解释说，额外费用包括将食品和饮料运送到顾客家中的服务费，从技术上讲并不是数字菜单上所列价格的附加费用。

不过，指南中的措辞表明，送餐费必须是一个固定的金额，而不是一个百分比，这样消费者在点餐前就能清楚地知道自己要付多少钱。

另一套规则适用于第三方送餐服务。在那里，顾客也必须在订单确认之前知道他们将被收取的费用。销售税和其他政府摊款将继续计算，并在顾客结算费用时计入餐厅账单。

为了减轻对餐馆的影响，餐馆可以将费用细分，说明有多少是食品或饮料费，有多少是员工费或其他费用。但必须向顾客出示一个全包价格。

邦达没有说明将如何执行这些规定。如果这项措施从 7 月 1 日开始执行，那么大概在未来七周内，该州数以千计的餐馆将不得不重新印制他们的菜单，如果他们想继续通过收取高于目前菜单价格的费用来保护利润的话。所有这些收费都必须重新调整，以纳入餐馆现在收取的总账单的附加百分比。

由于前所未有的通货膨胀水平，许多餐馆，尤其是提供全面服务的餐馆，都在账单总额上增加了服务费或附加费。经营者们争辩说，这些附加费使他们不必将菜单价格提高到会吓到顾客的水平，同时还能获得额外的收入来支付飞涨的食品和人工费用。

新的定价复杂性基于去年通过的广告真相法（AB 478）。起初，人们并不清楚禁止通常被蔑称为 “垃圾费 ”的附加费是否也适用于餐厅服务费和附加费。当时，邦达明确表示不适用。

但几个月前，《洛杉矶时报》报道称，餐馆附加费确实将被包括在内，这意味着他改变了主意。该报道的消息来源是总检察长办公室的一位匿名人士。

正如当时许多媒体报道的那样，向邦达求证的请求没有得到回应。餐厅生意》等信息渠道要求邦达澄清，但未果。

大约 10 天前，《旧金山纪事报》也引用了一位与州长关系密切的匿名人士作为消息来源，回应了《纽约时报》的报道。数十家媒体报道了这一消息，但总检察长办公室没有回应另一波求证请求。加州餐馆协会和全美餐馆协会同样承认，他们不知道餐馆附加费是否会被包括在内。

---

California bans most restaurant service fees and other surcharges

The prohibition takes effect July 1. Delivery fees would still be allowed, and automatic gratuities tacked onto the tabs of large parties would also be permitted at least initially.

After keeping the industry in the dark for weeks, California’s attorney general has decided to prohibit all restaurants in the state from charging any price higher other than what’s listed on their menus or menu boards, in effect outlawing most service fees or other surcharges.

The measure goes into effect July 1.

The only exceptions, at least initially, will be surcharges whose proceeds go entirely to a restaurant’s employees, such as a gratuity automatically tacked onto the tab for a large party. Under the language of the bill that was the foundation for the decision by Attorney General Rob Bonta, a service fee could continue to be charged if all the generated funds are distributed to the staff.

However, a series of FAQs issued as guidance on the new restrictions indicates that the state may disallow those exceptions down the road.

The FAQs specify that restaurants can charge a different price than what’s posted on their menus, but only if it’s lower than what’s displayed.

In addition, restaurants can continue to charge a fee above and beyond the listed price for an item if that selection is delivered. The guidelines explain that the additional fee covers the service of transporting the food and beverage to the customer’s home, and is not technically an add-on to the price listed on a digital menu.

However, the language suggests that the delivery charge must be a fixed amount, not a percentage, so consumers will know exactly how much they’ll be paying ahead of ordering.

A separate set of rules applies to third-party delivery services. There, too, customers must know the fee they’ll be charged before the order is confirmed.

Sales taxes and other government assessments will continue to be calculated and added to restaurant tabs when the customer settles his or her charges.

In an apparent effort to soften the impact for restaurants, an establishment can break down its fee to show how much of the charge is for food or beverage and how much is a levy for the staff or other expenses. But one all-inclusive price must be presented to the customer.

Bonda did not say how the rules will be enforced. If the measure is policed right from July 1, presumably thousands of restaurants in the state will have to reprint their menus in roughly the next seven weeks if they wish to continue protecting margins by charging more than what's currently listed as their menu prices. All of those charges would have to be recalibrated to incorporate what establishments are now collecting as an added percentage of the total bill.

Because of unprecedented inflation levels, many restaurants, and full-service places in particular, have been adding service fees, or surcharges on the total of a tab. Operators contend that the add-ons spare them from having to ratchet up menu prices to levels that will scare patrons a way, while still generating the additional revenues they need to cover their soaring food and labor expenses.

The new pricing complications are based on AB 478, a truth-in-advertising law passed last year. Initially, it was unclear if the prohibitions against add-on charges, usually disparaged as “junk fees,” would pertain to restaurant service fees and surcharges. At the time, Bonda specifically said they would not.

But a suggestion that he’d changed his mind initially came to light several months ago, when the Los Angeles Times reported that restaurant surcharges would indeed be covered. Its source was identified as an anonymous figure from the attorney general’s office.

Requests for confirmation from Bonda went unanswered, as many media reported at the time. Restaurant Business was among the information channels that asked for clarification to no avail.

About 10 days ago, the San Francisco Chronicle echoed the Times’ story, also citing an anonymous figure close to the governor as its source. Dozens of media outlets picked up the story, but the attorney general’s office did not respond to another wave of requests for confirmation.

The California Restaurant Association and the National Restaurant Association similarly acknowledged that they were unaware if restaurant surcharges would be covered.

Editor-in-Chief: Betty Xie Executive Editor 编委 : Guanwen Lee（李冠文） 美食评论家: Vincent Xia

相关内容