Republish
California restaurants now want an exemption from the state’s new hidden fees law
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
California restaurants now want an exemption from the state’s new hidden fees law
Share this:
In “1984,” George Orwell’s novel about a dystopian future, he describes “newspeak,” a propagandistic language of euphemisms and inversions used by officialdom to mask the reality of their meaning.
We got a dose of California-style newspeak last week when state Sen. Bill Dodd, a Napa Democrat, introduced Senate Bill 1524. It would exempt restaurants from his previous legislation, SB 478, which requires businesses to fully include extra fees in their prices, rather than tacking them on after services or goods have been delivered.
Dodd declared his proposed new legislation would “enhance consumer protection” for restaurant patrons by “clarifying state law” on how fees and other service charges should be disclosed.
“Restaurant customers shouldn’t be surprised when they get their checks by a slew of extra charges they were not expecting,” Dodd said. “Many restaurants are up-front with their business practices but too many aren’t, necessitating action.”
In fact, Dodd’s original legislation, passed last year and due to take effect on July 1, was aimed at eliminating “a slew of extra charges” on restaurant bills and other consumer transactions. But SB 1524 would reduce consumer protection by allowing restaurants to avoid full disclosure of their prices by burying the notices of extra fees within their menus, where customers are least likely to notice them.
The deceptive descriptions of Dodd’s new legislation accompany assertions by bill sponsors in the restaurant industry and their unions that if surcharges are included in food prices, they would somehow lead to pay reductions.
“Cutting the pay of banquet servers and ballpark workers was never the intention of SB 478, as the bill’s authors have made clear,” said Mario Yedidia, western political director for UNITE HERE, a union that represents some food service workers.
“This will enable restaurants to continue to support increased pay equity and to make contributions to worker health care and other employee benefits,” added Matthew Sutton, senior vice president of the California Restaurant Association.
Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story.
Bill Dodd
Democrat, Former State Senate, District 3 (Napa)
There is absolutely nothing in the current law that prevents restaurants from raising their prices as much as they desire to increase their workers’ pay and benefits. That’s simply business as usual throughout the economy.
Nor is requiring restaurants and other businesses to list their full prices before consumers decide whether to make transactions such a novel idea.
Take, for instance, gasoline prices.
If you pay $5 for a gallon of gas, it includes about $1.50 in state and federal taxes and other surcharges. The full prices are displayed on signs and on the gas pumps themselves. Gas stations cannot advertise fuel for $3.50 and then tack on the extra fees and taxes after you’ve already filled your tank.
Before you buy a house and take on a mortgage, state law requires you to be informed of transaction fees before signing the final papers. Same applies for buying a new car.
When SB 478 was going through the Legislature last year, somehow those in the restaurant business assumed that it would not compel them to list full prices in their menus, even though there was nothing in the bill itself to support that assumption.
Uncertainty about SB 478’s effect on restaurants led Attorney General Rob Bonta to declare recently that they would be subject to the new law, generating a strong backlash from those in the industry and pressure on Dodd and other legislators to grant an exemption.
We shouldn’t be fooled by the newspeak descriptions of SB 1524. It does not “enhance consumer protection.” It would purposely undermine consumer protection by allowing restaurants to resume their bait-and-switch tactics – giving patrons menu prices that don’t fully reflect what their final bills will be.
Read More
California restaurants shouldn’t be shocked law banning ‘junk fees’ applies to them
Lawmakers attempt crackdown on hidden fees
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters