Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clyde’s Restaurant Group Sued Over Alleged “Junk Fees”
Washingtonian ^ | 11/08/2023 | Jessica Sidman

Posted on 11/16/2023 11:31:34 AM PST by simpson96

Travelers United, a DC-based non-profit that advocates for travelers, has sued Clyde’s Restaurant Group for unfair and deceptive advertising. The group alleges that a 3.75 percent “2023 surcharge” on the menu at all Clyde’s restaurants—which include Old Ebbitt Grill and 1789—violates DC’s consumer protection laws and liquor licensing requirements.

“It’s a fee for nothing,” says Travelers United counsel Lauren Wolfe. “This is not a fee that pays for staff. This is not a fee that pays for any sort of service or extra food. This is simply a fee so that they can lie about the advertised price.”

A note on the menu of Clyde’s restaurants’ reads: “Our restaurants have been operating with extraordinary increases in the cost of doing business. High inflation, rising wages and supply chain challenges have continued beyond the pandemic creating a difficult operating environment. We have reluctantly chosen to implement a separate 3.75% fee for 2023 with the hope that it can be eliminated in the future as conditions improve. We appreciate your support and understanding.”

Clyde’s Restaurant Group President John McDonnell argues that the surcharge is compliant with the DC Attorney General’s recent guidance on transparency for restaurant fees. “It’s a little surprising to be conforming to the guidance that you rely on from your local government to then be sued for it,” he says. “I think it’s a little sad that they’re going after restaurants at a time when the forces of inflation and a lot of issues coming out of Covid are still really hanging on there,” he says.

McDonnell says Clyde’s added the surcharge at the start of the year to deal with “huge inflationary spikes, which honestly we didn’t think were going to be a forever thing.” He says it was a “coin toss” whether they added those extra costs to menu prices or separated them out as a surcharge. Ultimately, they opted for the latter because they hoped it would be a temporary measure. “Once people get comfortable paying higher prices, restaurants tend to not bring them down when costs come down. We said, ‘You know what? Why don’t we do a surcharge and then if things ease up dramatically, we just remove it.'”

McDonnell says a “very, very tiny percentage” of customers have an issue with the surcharge. If someone complains, the restaurants just refund them. “It’s not that controversial on our end,” he says.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Food
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/16/2023 11:31:34 AM PST by simpson96
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: simpson96

Junk Fee?

Ok, thought it, but not gonna say it…


2 posted on 11/16/2023 11:34:52 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
Junk Fee?

I figured it was the mob back to their old trach collections kickbacks. Then I realized that the mob is now run by the government, so It made sense.

3 posted on 11/16/2023 12:06:51 PM PST by usurper (AI was born with a birth defect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: simpson96

Sneaky of the restaurant chain not to just increase menu prices - I would guess the surcharge appears in pretty small print somewhere on the menu and would be easy to overlook. And there’s no way in hell they’d ever actually get rid of the fee. When’s the last time something like a “resort fee”, etc. was ever decreased or eliminated?

On the other hand, it seems weird that Travelers United would have legal standing to bring the case in the first place. Shouldn’t it be some actual disaffected customer(s)? Seems like this organization is using this sort of litigation to justify its existence, fundraising, etc.

Can we have both sides lose, please?


4 posted on 11/16/2023 12:09:31 PM PST by rockvillem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: simpson96

Whatever happened to the idea of just taking your business elsewhere? A lawsuit? I smell ambulance chaser.


5 posted on 11/16/2023 12:13:26 PM PST by Seruzawa ("The Political left is the Garden of Eden of incompetence" - Marx the Smarter (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: simpson96

Doing this is stupid and deceptive. Just do what everyone else would do and raise the price of your items. There is only one reason any business would do it this way. And that is to make things look better than they are. Yes- It is a deceptive gimmick. Just like when a business charges unreasonable shipping and handling fees to cover a low product price. Same level of slime.


6 posted on 11/16/2023 12:17:04 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: simpson96

So, businesses can’t act like government and just add fees willy-nilly? I like the “fees for nothing”, shoot that’s half the shit I pay to the government.


7 posted on 11/16/2023 12:34:32 PM PST by Lockbox (politicians, they all seemed like game show hosts to me.... Sting…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revel

How is it deceptive? They tell you what they are doing, and then they do it. I have been in several restaurants who now charge 3-4% extra if you use a charge card. They are passing the fee they pay the cc company on to you, but you can pay cash and avoid it.


8 posted on 11/16/2023 1:09:35 PM PST by hinckley buzzard ( Resist the narrative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: simpson96

Washingtonian still exists?

Must still be a few active lawyer and doctor offices left in the city. That and the obligatory news mention in exchange for a subscription, a perk that is so dear to the Uniparty.


9 posted on 11/16/2023 1:29:55 PM PST by nicollo ("This is FR!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: simpson96
"We have reluctantly chosen to implement a separate 3.75% fee for 2023 with the hope that it can be eliminated in the future as conditions improve..."

For those who are old enough, like myself, it is like reliving listening to FDR all over again...

10 posted on 11/16/2023 3:42:22 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is the next Sam Adams when we so desperately need him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revel

Years ago, a club I belonged to held its officer installation at a local restaurant. Members would pay separately, but the restaurant was going to give a 10% rebate back to the club. Some people arrived early, and the wait staff asked, “would you like a beverage?” Most people did.

At the end of the evening, the wait staff handed the treasurer a bill for the drinks people had at the beginning. There went the rebate. Now that was deceptive.


11 posted on 11/17/2023 1:45:16 PM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson