Restaurant Surcharges

Online comments: 21

• anonymous

  dom’t

  Comment added November 12, 2025 10:59am

• Judi Wong

  No comment

  Comment added November 12, 2025 11:13am

• Dorina Dashi

  Hi, what is this in reference to? My establishment has paid the fees through a third party for Workers Compensation and Disability insurance. Is this part of the process or are there additional fines we were unaware of?

  Comment added November 12, 2025 11:19am

• SANDRA HUNG FONG

  As a consumer, I just would like to say if the mandatory gratuity is going to be enforced to the operators and have it posted more visibly on the food menu, or wait service, I suggest that the operators remove the mandatory tip line below gratuity %. That creates confusion for us to consumers. We cannot pay the Tax % with Gratuity % and Tip % , it will add btwn 30- 40% more on the bill, which is absurd when we dine in. Take out cashiers should not expect TIPS or have gratuity %, unless it is table service.
  I agree that the gratuity % will help balance fair wages for table service staff. But I believe it is not fair for us to consumer to pay additional 18% to 20% on TIPS if we pay already the mandatory Gratuity fees. That is greed.

  Comment added November 12, 2025 11:29am

• Xintong Li

  The surcharge is becoming an issues because the cost of running business is getting higher and higher. I recommend that the NYC allow restaurant charge whatever service charge that is conspicuously displayed. To incentivize the restaurants not to charge service charges, NYC should provide tax credit to restaurants.

  Comment added November 12, 2025 11:51am

• Andrew Benvenuti

  As a bartender I believe transparency is the best policy. I think this change will make clear where a patrons money is going and for what they are being charged.

  Comment added November 12, 2025 5:33pm

• Anonymous

  Why are democrats making more and more regulations that hurt small businesses/restaurants . The more regulation that a restaurant has the higher the prices. People in NYC keep voting for the same people and complain why prices are so high. We need to vote these people out. Stop voting blue. All they do is charge businesses and raise their taxes so they can waste the money on useless things. We have a spending problem in the city. Stop strangling the restaurants and let them make money. That’s how you keep prices down. You need competition, but when the government makes it harder and harder for small restaurants to survive, there’s no competition.

  Comment added November 12, 2025 7:44pm

• Unknown

  1. Why is it necessary to tip at least 20% when getting a haircut or manicure? Can I order a haircut or manicure like foodto take out Is tipping not required?

  Comment added November 13, 2025 3:23am

• Anonymous

  As a consumer and frequent user of food delivery services like Seamless, I support this proposal. There is nothing more frustrating than putting in an order and then, when the total pops up, discovering a hefty service fee tacked on — and for what? The restaurant proprietors are the ones offering the service of delivery, which I am taking them up on via app. The fees have started to influence which restaurants I will order from again. Transparency behind the fee would go a long way toward earning goodwill from the customer.

  Comment added November 18, 2025 5:31pm

• Anonymous

  A “gratuity” is a voluntary contribution. Traditionally, a gratuity is a graduated dollar amount based on a variety of factors as may be determined by the customer. Therefore, classifying a gratuity as a mandatory fee is contrary to what a gratuity is. The rule should indicate that a “mandatory ‘fee’ in lieu of a ‘gratuity’ for parties over a certain size” may be charged and must be clearly stated on the menu, on-line reservation sites and on the entrance to the premises (it’s too late after you’ve sat down), and should be limited to cases of parties of 7 or more (so as to avoid such fee for what would otherwise be a relatively normal party size of 3 couples). The “computed percentage” of such fee should be based on the base charge and not on charges including taxes or other markups. Finally, such a fee percentage should be capped as it is a free-for-all of surcharges that needs to be reined in. On a very large tab it is unreasonable to expect a 20% markup. Alternatively, if an establishment wants to continue to call it a ‘gratuity’, then it becomes discretionary on the part of the customer whether to pay it or not and such rule should be clearly displayed in the menu and other locations noted previously.

  Comment added November 19, 2025 10:38am

• JS

  GET RID OF THIS BULLSHIT SURCHARGE IF A CUSTOMER USES A CREDIT CARD!!
  THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP RESTAURANTS (AND OTHER BUSINESSES) ONLY DURING COVID. COVID IS LONG GONE,, GET RID OF THE BULLSHIT CREDIT CARD SURCHARGE ALREADY!!!!

  Comment added November 19, 2025 12:12pm

• Mara

  NYC restaurants are already expensive to dine in: the Mandatory gratuity charge in addition to the tips and taxes makes the bill 30-40% more than what the intended price is. When consumers are dining in, they are already paying a lot for the food per person. From my personal experience, I have had dinner at restaurants that already added the tax and gratuity fee. The server is already suggesting how much tip should be based on 10%, 15%, 20% of the bill. Sometimes when you don’t tip appropriately, the servers get upset. All these fees make it very difficult for an average person to dine out. If restaurants keep adding their gratuity and taxes, they will lose business from people that can not afford to come out and pay $30-40 more than their bill.

  Comment added November 20, 2025 3:35pm

• Anonymous

  Do you know what happens when there is mandatory gratuity? Workers don’t care about service because they get tipped anyway. Everyone pays more, and the quality and level of service goes down. Stop enabling lazy people, and bring back competition.

  Comment added November 27, 2025 2:25pm

• Anonymous

  Please see attached notarized explanation and defense from Pamela Anderson which was uploaded on October 14, 2025 to your office for the telephone hearing scheduled for October 20, 2025 at 9:30am. Ms. Alexander arrived at my office at 9:00am but we never received the expected telephone call from OATH. She remained in my office until 11:30am without any calls.

  Comment attachment
  20251203221650813.pdf

  Comment added December 3, 2025 10:18pm

• C. James Robert von Scholz SC

  BY WEBSITE SUBMISSION / NO HARDCOPY SENT:
  https://www.rules.cityofnewyork.us/rule/restaurant-surcharges/

  New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
  Attn: Office of Legal Counsel
  42 Broadway, 8th Floor
  New York, NY 10004

  Re: Public Comment on Proposed Rule – Consumer Disclosure and Restaurant Service Charges of Title 6 Chapter 6 Section 1 §5-59 Subchapter B of the Rules of the City of New York

  To Whom It May Concern:

  I submit this comment on the proposed restaurant surcharge regulations in my capacity as a registered representative advocating for parties before the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH).

  I routinely counsel and represent parties across the city’s administrative forums and frequently address matters involving NYC Administrative Code Title 20, consumer-deceptive practice allegations, and service-charge disputes.

  My perspective is shaped by the evidentiary burdens and procedural realities that both businesses and consumers face once a case reaches OATH for adjudication.

  That experience informs the support I express below as well as several operational concerns that merit attention before final adoption.
  Support: Consumer and Public-Facing Benefits

  The rule promotes transparency and aligns with longstanding consumer-protection principles under the Administrative Code. Requiring restaurants to provide conspicuous, pre-order disclosure of any service charge is a significant improvement. Consumers gain clear notice at the correct point in the transaction rather than discovering additional fees at payment. This restores meaningful consent and supports the enforcement structure relied upon by DCWP and OATH.

  The rule’s definition of a bona fide service charge provides needed clarity. Mandatory gratuities authorized by a valid written agreement, including collective bargaining agreements, and charges connected to specific services are clearly identified.

  This prevents the infusion of vague or opportunistic fees that previously caused confusion and triggered consumer complaints. Establishments that comply receive a well-defined safe operational pathway.

  The emphasis on written disclosure across menus, digital platforms, and ordering interfaces strengthens the overall reliability of the marketplace.

  Consistent, accurate information: lowers the volume of disputes that reach OATH; reduces allegations of deceptive business practices, and improves the public’s ability to evaluate total cost before choosing a restaurant.

  The rule also supports equitable labor practices.

  When mandatory gratuities are tied to a written workforce agreement, the flow of funds to employees is clear.

  Consumers benefit from knowing that the charge serves an identifiable labor purpose rather than operating as general revenue.

  Taken together, the rule advances legitimate consumer-protection interests under the city’s authority within Title 20 and Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code.

  It is a constructive step toward restoring consumer confidence in a marketplace that has experienced fee inflation and inconsistent business practices.

  Opposition: Liabilities and Operational Impacts on Restaurants

  While the rule enhances consumer transparency, several provisions create material burdens for restaurants, many of which operate with limited administrative capacity. These burdens will directly influence the enforcement environment at OATH.

  The absence of a cure period is a significant concern. Any failure to display required disclosure on menus, websites, app-based platforms, or point-of-sale materials exposes the business to immediate enforcement.

  In practice, this will capture many restaurants that make good-faith efforts but have inconsistent disclosures across multiple ordering systems.

  Once a violation is issued, there is no procedural mechanism that allows correction before penalty assessment.

  However, this increases case volume at OATH and heightens enforcement risk for operators working to comply.

  The documentation demands are substantial.

  Restaurants must maintain accurate, contemporaneous records demonstrating that each service charge falls within the rule’s permitted categories. They must also ensure that all staff rely on the same definition of the charge when communicating with customers.

  Gaps in documentation weaken a restaurant’s position in OATH proceedings because the agency’s case often relies on menu screenshots, receipts, and consumer testimony, while the business must produce full operational records.

  Restaurants that operate under New York Labor Law wage structures face additional complexity. A mandatory charge that is not correctly allocated to employees may conflict with the Hospitality Wage Order.

  Even when the charge complies with DCWP rules, misapplication may expose the business to parallel liability under state wage law. Operators must therefore manage two regulatory frameworks simultaneously, each with different evidentiary demands.

  Many restaurants will encounter sudden cost increases when updating print and digital materials. Third-party delivery platforms require separate updates, and discrepancies across interfaces will be treated as noncompliant disclosures.

  Although the goals of the rule are valid, the operational impact on smaller establishments is significant.

  The strict limits on what constitutes a permissible surcharge also carry unintended consequences. Restaurants may eliminate certain service models or cease offering specialized services if the associated charge is difficult to document under the rule.

  This could reduce service availability rather than improve transparency.

  Opposition: Liabilities and Impacts on Consumers

  Consumers gain transparency, but they also assume new burdens. Service charges raise the total cost of dining, particularly in establishments with union agreements that rely on fixed mandatory gratuities. While disclosed, these charges still increase economic pressure on households.

  Consumers also face limited avenues for challenge when disclosures are complete. Once a restaurant meets the pre-order notice requirement, the charge is lawful, and an OATH challenge will not succeed.

  Many consumers may misinterpret the nature of the charge or assume it is optional despite full compliance by the restaurant. This creates frustration and contributes to misunderstanding without altering the legal status of the charge.

  Terminology variations may still cause confusion. Even with standardized disclosure requirements, consumers must navigate terms such as “service charge,” “mandatory gratuity,” “non-discretionary fee,” and “operations charge.”

  Without aggressive public guidance, misunderstandings will continue, which increases tension between consumers and restaurants.

  Finally, the strict enforcement regime may cause restaurants to implement rapid pricing changes in response to violations.

  Consumers may see inconsistent policy shifts that create uncertainty at the point of sale.

  Conclusion

  The proposed rule strengthens consumer transparency and offers restaurants a clearer regulatory pathway for permissible service charges. The framework is legally sound and within the authority granted to the Department under Title 20 of the Administrative Code.

  At the same time, however, several operational burdens will fall heavily on restaurants, primarily due to the immediate-enforcement structure, documentation demands, and multi-platform disclosure requirements.

  Consumers benefit from advance notice, yet they also face increased total costs and persistent confusion in terminology.

  To ensure the proposed rule under New York City jurisdiction is implemented effectively and equitably, I urge the Department to conduct a comprehensive stakeholder enquiry process.

  This process will address the operational, legal, and consumer impacts identified in the document and ensure that the rule achieves its intended objectives while minimizing unintended consequences.

  Stakeholder Identification

  Key stakeholders to engage include:

  Restaurants: Small, medium, and large establishments, including those operating under union agreements or specialized service models.

  Consumer Advocacy Groups: Organizations representing consumer interests, particularly regarding transparency and economic impacts.

  Labor Organizations: Groups representing hospitality workers, especially those affected by mandatory gratuities and wage compliance.

  Regulatory and Enforcement Agencies: Entities responsible for oversight, such as the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) and the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH).

  Third-Party Platforms: Digital ordering and delivery services that may face compliance challenges.

  Methods of Engagement

  To gather meaningful input, the following methods should be employed:

  Public Hearings: Provide a forum for stakeholders to present their perspectives and concerns.

  Surveys and Questionnaires: Distribute targeted surveys to businesses, consumers, and labor groups to collect quantitative and qualitative data.

  Focus Groups: Conduct sessions with diverse stakeholder groups to explore specific operational and consumer concerns.

  Written Submissions: Invite detailed feedback from stakeholders, including legal and operational analyses.

  Key Areas of Inquiry

  The enquiry should focus on the following critical areas:

  Operational Challenges for Restaurants: Compliance costs associated with updating print and digital materials; Documentation requirements to demonstrate compliance with permissible surcharge categories; Coordination across multiple ordering platforms to ensure consistent disclosures.

  Consumer Transparency and Understanding: Effectiveness of pre-order disclosure requirements in reducing confusion; Potential for misunderstandings due to varied terminology (e.g., “service charge,” “mandatory gratuity”); Economic impacts on households, particularly regarding increased dining costs.

  Labor and Wage Compliance: Interaction between the rule and New York Labor Law, including the Hospitality Wage Order; Risks of parallel liability for restaurants under state wage laws.

  Enforcement Mechanisms: Feasibility of introducing a cure period to allow businesses to correct violations before penalties are assessed; Potential for reduced case volume at OATH through operational flexibility.

  Outcome Utilization

  The findings from the enquiry should be used to:

  Refine the Rule: Address operational and enforcement concerns while maintaining transparency and consumer protection goals.

  Develop Guidance: Provide clear, accessible public guidance to reduce consumer misunderstandings and support restaurant compliance.

  Support Equitable Implementation: Balance the needs of businesses, consumers, and workers to ensure fair and effective enforcement.

  Recommendations for Adjustments

  Based on the operational and consumer impacts identified, the following adjustments should be considered: Introduce a cure period for noncompliance to reduce enforcement risks for good-faith operators; Simplify documentation requirements to ease administrative burdens on small businesses; Standardize terminology and provide public education campaigns to improve consumer understanding; Allow flexibility in surcharge definitions to accommodate diverse service models without undermining transparency.

  This expanded framework ensures that the rule is implemented in a manner that reflects the practical realities faced by all stakeholders while advancing its core objectives of transparency, fairness, and consumer protection.

  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  Respectfully submitted,

  /s/ C. James Robert von Scholz
  C. James Robert von Scholz SC
  Dir. Tel. +1.212.444.2670
  Dir. Fax. +1.212.590.6136
  Email : [email protected]

  Comment attachment
  5-59-12042025.pdf

  Comment added December 4, 2025 11:03am

• Nash

  Please review correction file thank you

  Comment attachment
  Pizza-violation-.pdf

  Comment added December 10, 2025 10:42am

• Anonymous

  I believe that the automatic gratuity has helped many tipped employees not only survive but thrive in the restaurant community. That being said, I believe it has also eliminated any motivation to provide better service for patrons, because this is money handed to them for no extra effort.

  Signage should disclose the automatic gratuity policy details and patrons should understand that since they may be paying this there is no obligation to pay anything extra on top of that as some people I know believe they deserve. This eliminates the illusion that employees think this is their right to earn this money but not provide any benefit to the patrons in terms of real customer service. Having transperency with our patrons also helps improve the hospitality industry as a whole instead of this predatory feeling that’s been going on since CoVID. There should be a middle ground between gratuity and tips where if there is gratuity the % should be reasonable and restaurants continue to get a tip credit for this.

  New York especially should take this opportunity to improve these measures and therefore increase the general sentiment New Yorkers and tourists have regarding the hospitality they receive in many of our restaurants. That sentiment has worsened over the last few years and it only hurts New York’s economy.

  Comment added December 10, 2025 10:43am

• Yremil Rosario

  No comment

  Comment added December 10, 2025 11:01am

• Anonymous

  How do they plan on clarifying surcharges? What is their plan for helping restaurants with all their surcharges?

  Comment added December 10, 2025 11:44am

• Angie

  Asking that :
  1)DCWP define clearer boundaries for mandatory gratuity by party size. Proposal cites parties of 8 or more without additional guidance. If restaurants apply mandatory gratuity to small parties, what is the guidance.

  2)Require standardized receipt language for gratuity or service charge.

  3) And clarify guidance on pay impacts –classification of tips vs mandatory service charges that can affect withholding and OT calculations under existing law. We need to understand how these charges will appear on paystubs and how OT is calculated.

  With minimum wages rising every year, this creates big impact on restaurants’ labor budget. Thank you.

  Comment added December 10, 2025 11:49am

• Anonymous

  There are many different perspectives about bona fide restaurant service charges. A service charge, also known as a mandatory gratuity, is different from a tip because it is automatically added to the bill. If the rules and explanations are not clearly stated, customers may feel uncertain or burdened by it.
  To avoid confusion, the explanations should be clearly listed depending on the situation. For example,
  1. It must be labeled under a name that is not “tip” or “gratuity”.
  2. It must be clearly disclosed on the menu when customers can easily see it.
  3. It may apply to special requests made by the customer.
  4. It may apply when two guests share one meal.
  5. It may apply to parties of eight or more at one table.

  When these explanations are clearly communicated, both customers and employees can better understand the purpose of a bona fide service charge.

  Comment added December 10, 2025 6:08pm