Business
What does a service fee ban mean for diners? Expect higher menu prices — a lot higher
Coming this summer is a new state law that bans unadvertised service fees, surcharges and other additional costs that are added to the end of a bill for meals or delivery service.
On July 1, Senate Bill 478, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in October, is set to prohibit “junk fees” across a wide swath of businesses, including online ticket sales, hotels, restaurants, bars and delivery apps.
Sens. Bill Dodd (D-Napa) and Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), who co-wrote the bill, say it will offer greater protections for consumers.
“These deceptive fees prevent us from knowing how much we will be charged at the outset,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who co-sponsored the measure, said in a statement the day it was signed. “They are bad for consumers and bad for competition. … With the signing of SB478, California now has the most effective piece of legislation in the nation to tackle this problem. The price Californians see will be the price they pay.”
Many owners of restaurants and bars rely on now-ubiquitous surcharges to offer employee benefits such as healthcare and higher wages and often note surcharges on menus; some are listed as “elective,” left to the discretion of the diner. As implementation of the law looms, some now say the consequences could be disastrous and “upend” the industry.
The restaurants will need to factor surcharge fees into menu prices, as opposed to simply advertising them at the end of a bill, state officials said.
“At this point, we are going to have to raise our prices a big chunk,” said James Beard Award-winning restaurateur Caroline Styne, co-owner and wine director of the Lucques Group of restaurants and wine director of Hollywood Bowl Food & Wine.
For instance, the famous Ode to Zuni roast chicken with fennel panzanella at A.O.C. is currently priced at $39 and will likely rise to $49 once the law goes into effect, she said.
“Restaurants are in a very tough spot right now,” Styne added. “We’ve really been under tremendous pressure … most restaurants are hemorrhaging money.”
Although most new laws in California take effect on Jan. 1, the delayed implementation was intentional, allowing more time for restaurants, bars and other businesses to adjust accordingly, according to a representative for the attorney general’s office. Clarifying materials on the new law are also expected to be published by the state before July 1.
“SB478 is about greater transparency for consumers and clear communication about the actual cost of goods and services,” a spokesperson told The Times in a statement.
Previous statements from the attorney general’s office said SB478 would not “bar restaurants from charging service fees,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported last fall. “Those fees, however, must be disclosed (so they are no longer hidden) in restaurants’ advertised prices.”
Now, according to the office of the attorney general, restaurants and bars will still be able to advertise surcharges and other fees on the menu but they must be included in menu prices from the outset. A representative of the office declined to address how or whether elective fees would be addressed in the new law.
For customers, that might mean sticker shock when a $35 menu item in theory could now be listed at $42; for many restaurants, the fallout could be a decrease in business. Rolling surcharges or fees of 1% to 20% or more into menu pricing could also trigger other business costs.
Styne said the new law will only precipitate the closure of more restaurants, which are still recovering from the pandemic and summer strikes.
FTC cracks down on junk fees
California’s law could have national implications. Days after Newsom signed SB478, the Biden administration announced “new efforts to crack down on junk fees and bring down costs for American consumers” in collaboration with the Federal Trade Commission. The new FTC regulation would prohibit “omitting” and “misrepresenting” fees from the total cost of goods.
“It’s a very similar approach at a federal level,” said Laurie Thomas, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Assn. “If the playing field is level across the United States, is it going to hurt restaurants?
“I think that in areas like San Francisco that have higher mandated laws that put costs on small restaurants — the extra healthcare spend, the extra sick pay, the extra paid family leave — all the stuff we pay for that people aren’t even aware of, it’s gonna have to make us put prices higher.”
Her organization represents roughly 800 restaurants in San Francisco and has been attempting to advise and prepare restaurateurs on how to comply with the new legislation. Thomas said she has been seeking clarity on California’s rule since October, with little directive from the state on how restaurants should proceed.
“A lot of people are reaching out for clarity,” she said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s not going to drop the price of dining out. What it might do is close more restaurants. But maybe people don’t care about that anymore.”
Service charge controversy
Service fees have become a point of contention for diners, food workers and restaurant owners. In June, former servers at Jon & Vinny’s, a popular Italian American restaurant, filed a class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against its owners, Jon Shook and Vinny Dotolo, alleging that their company denied servers tips, resulting in a reduction of take-home pay, due to diner confusion regarding an 18% service fee.
The restaurant owners subsequently changed the language at the bottom of customer bills regarding the fee: “The service charge is not a tip or gratuity, and is an added fee controlled by the restaurant that helps facilitate a higher living base wage for all of our employees. Please scan the QR Code at the top of the receipt for additional information, or speak with a manager.”
Last month, a former server at Found Oyster launched a class-action lawsuit against parent company Last Word Hospitality, alleging that the firm wrongfully withheld tips in the form of service fees. The complaint was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Kato restaurateur Ryan Bailey is aware of the scrutiny and said it’s possible that some operators are “misusing the service charge.” But most, he believes, are distributing them correctly and relying on them to keep their businesses and employee benefits running smoothly.
“Every restaurateur that I know who cares in this industry is using it in a way that is so immensely appropriate and responsible and forward thinking that if it was to go away, it would be really crippling to everybody,” Bailey said.
“We have people who have progressed from entry level positions into management positions because they felt that we are taking care of them and care about their financial stability. It has allowed us to make the workweek a 40-hour workweek,” rather than the industry norm of a patchwork of hours or otherwise part-time shifts for servers and back-of-house employees, he added.
At Kato, the No. 1 restaurant in the city, according to The Times’ 2023 101 Best Restaurants list, Bailey said the 18% surcharge helps pay for an employee benefit package that includes mental, medical, dental and vision insurance. It also balances pay on slow nights.
Food delivery apps will function differently under the new law.
According to the attorney general’s office, these apps must list the price for delivery costs and all other fees; services such as delivery cannot be advertised as free or at a given amount, with additional miscellaneous fees tacked on at the end of the transaction. However, unlike with restaurants, previously listed surcharges or service fees cannot be built into the item price. Assembly Bill 2149, also referred to as the Fair Food Delivery Act of 2020, states that menu prices are set by the participating restaurants on the platforms and cannot be inflated by delivery services.
A representative for Postmates and Uber Eats, which are both owned by Uber, said that the listing of prices is already compliant with the new law and that the company worked directly with lawmakers to ensure compliance. Last year, a statement from DoorDash said, “There are no hidden fees, junk fees or surprises at checkout. We’re upfront on pricing.”
For some apps such as Postmates, applicable fees are detailed by pressing the small “i,” or “info,” button next to “delivery fee” or “taxes & other fees” in the checkout cart. DoorDash exercises this same checkout format, as well as breaks down possible charges via a small “pricing & fees” button near the top of each restaurant’s listing.
When asked whether this is acceptable procedure as is, as well as how the practice differs from restaurants and bars listing surcharges and fees on menus, a representative for the attorney general said, “We are unable to provide legal advice or analysis.”
“Fees help us operate the DoorDash platform, ensure Dashers are paid fairly, and offer merchants tools to grow their businesses,” a spokesperson for DoorDash wrote in a statement to The Times. “That said, we are always working to make our platform more transparent and affordable and we never surprise consumers with hidden fees or junk fees. Consumers always see what they will pay — multiple times — before checkout on our platform.”
For restaurants, the law will also prohibit a common 18% service charge on parties of six or more. Styne characterized the change as unfair, since additional labor has to be provided with such large parties. The restaurant shouldn’t have to absorb that additional cost, she argued. A senate official told The Times that they were awaiting clarification from the attorney general’s office regarding the law’s inclusion of large-party surcharges.
Rising labor costs, high taxes and tight regulations paired with razor-thin profits have made California a tough place for restaurants to stay open, Styne said. “There are a lot of businesses that will be upended by this.”
Cindy Carcamo contributed to this report.
Business
Scott Bessent, Trump’s Billionaire Treasury Pick, Will Shed Assets to Avoid Conflicts
Scott Bessent, the billionaire hedge fund manager whom President-elect Donald J. Trump picked to be his Treasury secretary, plans to divest from dozens of funds, trusts and investments in preparation to become the nation’s top economic policymaker.
Those plans were released on Saturday along with the publication of an ethics agreement and financial disclosures that Mr. Bessent submitted ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing next Thursday.
The documents show the extent of the wealth of Mr. Bessent, whose assets and investments appear to be worth in excess of $700 million. Mr. Bessent was formerly the top investor for the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros and has been a major Republican donor and adviser to Mr. Trump.
If confirmed as Treasury secretary, Mr. Bessent, 62, will steer Mr. Trump’s economic agenda of cutting taxes, rolling back regulations and imposing tariffs as he seeks to renegotiate trade deals. He will also play a central role in the Trump administration’s expected embrace of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
Although Mr. Trump won the election by appealing to working-class voters who have been dogged by high prices, he has turned to wealthy Wall Street investors such as Mr. Bessent and Howard Lutnick, a billionaire banker whom he tapped to be commerce secretary, to lead his economic team. Linda McMahon, another billionaire, has been picked as education secretary, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is leading an unofficial agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency.
In a letter to the Treasury Department’s ethics office, Mr. Bessent outlined the steps he would take to “avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest in the event that I am confirmed for the position of secretary of the Department of Treasury.”
Mr. Bessent said he would shutter Key Square Capital Management, the investment firm that he founded, and resign from his Bessent-Freeman Family Foundation and from Rockefeller University, where he has been chairman of the investment committee.
The financial disclosure form, which provides ranges for the value of his assets, reveals that Mr. Bessent owns as much as $25 million of farmland in North Dakota, which earns an income from soybean and corn production. He also owns a property in the Bahamas that is worth as much as $25 million. Last November, Mr. Bessent put his historic pink mansion in Charleston, S.C., on the market for $22.5 million.
Mr. Bessent is selling several investments that could pose potential conflicts of interest including a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund; an account that trades the renminbi, China’s currency; and his stake in All Seasons, a conservative publisher. He also has a margin loan, or line of credit, with Goldman Sachs of more than $50 million.
As an investor, Mr. Bessent has long wagered on the rising strength of the dollar and has betted against, or “shorted,” the renminbi, according to a person familiar with Mr. Bessent’s strategy who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his portfolio. Mr. Bessent gained notoriety in the 1990s by betting against the British pound and earning his firm, Soros Fund Management, $1 billion. He also made a high-profile bet against the Japanese yen.
Mr. Bessent, who will be overseeing the U.S. Treasury market, holds over $100 million in Treasury bills.
Cabinet officials are required to divest certain holdings and investments to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. Although this can be an onerous process, it has some potential tax benefits.
The tax code contains a provision that allows securities to be sold and the capital gains tax on such sales deferred if the full proceeds are used to buy Treasury securities and certain money-market funds. The tax continues to be deferred until the securities or money-market funds are sold.
Even while adhering to the ethics guidelines, questions about conflicts of interest can still emerge.
Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary during his first term, Steven Mnuchin, divested from his Hollywood film production company after joining the administration. However, as he was negotiating a trade deal in 2018 with China — an important market for the U.S. film industry — ethics watchdogs raised questions about whether Mr. Mnuchin had conflicts because he had sold his interest in the company to his wife.
Mr. Bessent was chosen for the Treasury after an internal tussle among Mr. Trump’s aides over the job. Mr. Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s transition team co-chair and the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, made a late pitch to secure the Treasury secretary role for himself before Mr. Trump picked him to be Commerce secretary.
During that fight, which spilled into view, critics of Mr. Bessent circulated documents disparaging his performance as a hedge fund manager.
Mr. Bessent’s most recent hedge fund, Key Square Capital, launched to much fanfare in 2016, garnering $4.5 billion in investor money, including $2 billion from Mr. Soros, but manages much less now. A fund he ran in the early 2000s had a similarly unremarkable performance.
Business
As wildfires rage, private firefighters join the fight for the fortunate few
When devastating wildfires erupted across Los Angeles County this week, David Torgerson’s team of firefighters went to work.
The thousands of city, county and state firefighters dispatched to battle the blazes went wherever they were needed. The crews from Torgerson’s Wildfire Defense Systems, however, set out for particular addresses. Armed with hoses, fire-blocking gel and their own water supply, the Montana-based outfit contracts with insurance companies to defend the homes of customers who buy policies that include their services.
It’s a win-win if the private firefighters succeed in saving a home, said Torgerson, the company’s founder and executive chairman. The homeowner keeps their home and the insurance company doesn’t have to make a hefty payout to rebuild.
“It makes good sense,” he said. “It’s always better if the homes and businesses don’t burn.”
Torgerson’s operation, which has been contracting with insurance companies since 2008 and employs hundreds of firefighters, engineers and other staff, highlights a lesser-known component of fighting wildfires in the U.S. Along with the more than 7,500 publicly funded firefighters and emergency personnel dispatched to the current conflagrations, which have burned more than 30,000 acres and destroyed more than 9,000 structures, a smaller force of for-hire professionals is on the fire lines for insurance companies, wealthy individual property owners or government agencies in need of additional hands.
Their presence isn’t without controversy. Private firefighters hired by homeowners directly have drawn criticism for heightening class divides during disasters. This week, a Pacific Palisades homeowner received backlash for putting a call out on X, the social media site formerly named Twitter, for help finding private firefighters who could save his home.
“Does anyone have access to private firefighters to protect our home in Pacific Palisades? Need to act fast here. All neighbors houses burning,” he wrote in the since-deleted post. “Will pay any amount.”
“The epitome of nerve and tone deaf!” someone replied.
In 2018, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West credited private firefighters for saving their $60-million home in the Santa Monica mountains during a wildfire. But those who serve wealthy clients make up only a small fraction of nonpublic firefighters, according to Torgerson.
“Contract firefighters who are hired by the government are the vast majority,” he said. The federal government has been hiring private firefighters since the 1980s to support its own forces. According to the National Wildfire Suppression Assn., there are about 250 private sector fire response companies under federal contract, adding about 10,000 firefighters to U.S. efforts.
Some private firefighting companies, including Wildfire Defense Systems, are known as Qualified Insurance Resources and are paid by insurance companies to protect the homes of their customers. Wildfire Defense Systems refers to its on-the-ground forces as private sector wildfire personnel.
Wildfire Defense Systems only works with the insurance industry, but other privately held firefighting companies contract with industrial clients such as petrochemical facilities and utility providers. Wildfire Defense Systems declined to disclose company revenue or what it charges for its services.
Allied Disaster Defense, a company that has sent personnel to the fires in Los Angeles, offers services to both property owners and insurance companies. Its website says its services will “enhance the insurability of properties” and “contribute to reduced claims.”
The website also has a page dedicated to services for private clients, which include emergency response and assistance with insurance claims for “high net-worth and celebrity” customers. The company does not list prices for its services and has nondisclosure agreements with its private clients.
Several other private firefighting companies are based in California, including Mt. Adams Wildfire, which contracts with government agencies, and UrbnTek, which serves Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego among other areas. Along with spraying fire retardant on trees and brush to stop an advancing fire, the company offers “a double layer of protection by wrapping a structure with our fire blanket system.”
Torgerson, a civil engineer with 34 years in emergency services, said he has been struck by the speed of the current wildfires. While typically it takes two to 10 minutes for a fire to sweep through a home, he said, the Palisades fire is traveling at higher speeds.
“It’s moving so fast, it’ll likely take one to two minutes for these fires to pass over the properties,” he said.
He said his company responded to all 62 of the wildfires that threatened structures in California in 2024 and didn’t lose a property.
Business
As Delta Reports Profits, Airlines Are Optimistic About 2025
This year just got started, but it is already shaping up nicely for U.S. airlines.
After several setbacks, the industry ended 2024 in a fairly strong position because of healthy demand for tickets and the ability of several airlines to control costs and raise fares, experts said. Barring any big problems, airlines — especially the largest ones — should enjoy a great year, analysts said.
“I think it’s going to be pretty blue skies,” said Tom Fitzgerald, an airline industry analyst for the investment bank TD Cowen.
In recent weeks, many major airlines upgraded forecasts for the all-important last three months of the year. And on Friday, Delta Air Lines said it collected more than $15.5 billion in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024, a record.
“As we move into 2025, we expect strong demand for travel to continue,” Delta’s chief executive, Ed Bastian, said in a statement. That put the airline on track to “deliver the best financial year in Delta’s 100-year history,” he said.
The airline also beat analysts’ profit estimates and said it expected earnings per share, a measure of profitability, to rise more than 10 percent this year.
Delta’s upbeat report offers a preview of what are expected to be similarly rosy updates from other carriers that will report earnings in the next few weeks. That should come as welcome news to an industry that has been stifled by various challenges even as demand for travel has rocketed back after the pandemic.
“For the last five years, it’s felt like every bird in the sky was a black swan,” said Ravi Shanker, an analyst focused on airlines at Morgan Stanley. “But it appears that this industry does have its ducks in a row.”
That is, of course, if everything goes according to plan, which it rarely does. Geopolitics, terrorist attacks, air safety problems and, perhaps most important, an economic downturn could tank demand for travel. Rising costs, particularly for jet fuel, could erode profits. Or the industry could face problems like a supply chain disruption that limits availability of new planes or makes it harder to repair older ones.
Early last year, a panel blew off a Boeing 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight, resurfacing concerns about the safety of the manufacturer’s planes, which are used on most flights operated by U.S. airlines, according to Cirium, an aviation data firm.
The incident forced Boeing to slow production and delay deliveries of jets. That disrupted the plans of some airlines that had hoped to carry more passengers. And there was little airlines could do to adjust because the world’s largest jet manufacturer, Airbus, didn’t have the capacity to pick up the slack — both it and Boeing have long order backlogs. In addition, some Airbus planes were afflicted by an engine problem that has forced carriers to pull the jets out of service for inspections.
There was other tumult, too. Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy. A brief technology outage wreaked havoc on many airlines, disrupting travel and resulting in thousands of canceled flights in the heart of the busy summer season. And during the summer, smaller airlines flooded popular domestic routes with seats, squeezing profits during what is normally the most lucrative time of year.
But the industry’s financial position started improving when airlines reduced the number of flights and seats. While that was bad for travelers, it lifted fares and profits for airlines.
“You’re in a demand-over-supply imbalance, which gives the industry pricing power,” said Andrew Didora, an analyst at the Bank of America.
At the same time, airlines have been trying to improve their businesses. American Airlines overhauled a sales strategy that had frustrated corporate customers, helping it win back some travelers. Southwest Airlines made changes aimed at lowering costs and increasing profits after a push by the hedge fund Elliott Management. And JetBlue Airways unveiled a strategy with similar aims, after a less contentious battle with the investor Carl C. Icahn.
Those improvements and industry trends, along with the stabilization of fuel, labor and other costs, have created the conditions for what could be a banner 2025. “All of this is the best setup we’ve had in decades,” Mr. Shanker said.
That won’t materialize right away, though. Travel demand tends to be subdued in the winter. But business trips pick up somewhat, driven by events like this week’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
The positive outlook for 2025 is probably strongest for the largest U.S. airlines — Delta, United and American. All three are well positioned to take advantage of buoyant trends, including steadily rebounding business travel and customers who are eager to spend more on better seats and international flights.
But some smaller airlines may do well, too. JetBlue, Alaska Airlines and others have been adding more premium seats, which should help lift profits.
While he is optimistic overall, Mr. Shanker acknowledged that the industry was vulnerable to a host of potential problems.
“I mean, this time last year you were talking about doors falling off planes,” he said. “So who knows what might happen.”
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics1 week ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health6 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
South Korea extends Boeing 737-800 inspections as Jeju Air wreckage lifted
-
Technology3 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
World1 week ago
Weather warnings as freezing temperatures hit United Kingdom
-
News1 week ago
Seeking to heal the country, Jimmy Carter pardoned men who evaded the Vietnam War draft