Sued over tip division, some popular New York City restaurants switched to service-included pricing. Now, lawyers are suing them over that, calling it a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws and saying that the hike in menu prices was higher than the amount needed to cover servers’ compensation. [Steve Cuozzo, New York Post]
8 Comments
Did I read that right? A suit against New York restaurant owners was filed in California?
The suit was probably files by/on behalf of a “customer” who was allegedly damaged by the price fixing conspiracy. Who just happened to live in California. And will try to have California choice of law in effect, even though the “injury” occurred across the continent.
Price fixing is an anti-trust issue which is federal law. There might be friendlier local rules in the CA Federal District Court, but choice of state law is not a relevant issue.
Choice of law may not be an issue, but forum shopping sure is. I’m betting that the plaintiff’s/plaintiffs’ attorneys think they can get a more sympathetic judge in one of the California district courts.
Sadly missed opportunity for prix-fixe puns.
The prices of my puns aren’t broken, so I don’t need to fix them.
Maybe the complaint is airplane food?
Ha ha. These restaurants are now competing on the same basis as every other industry—they no longer have use the odd-ball tip-scheme for compensating some employees—and this is supposed to be unacceptable.