A California restaurant is facing serious allegations of deceptive business practices after a customer discovered an undisclosed fee on his bill. On June 17, 2024, Alexander Xue filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against Routier, LLC.
According to the complaint, Xue visited Routier's restaurant located at 2801 California St, San Francisco, on April 27, 2022. After enjoying his meal and requesting the bill, he noticed an unexpected charge labeled "Healthy SF Mandate." The additional fee amounted to $9.67 or 5% of his subtotal. Xue claims that this charge was not disclosed anywhere on the menu or by the server prior to him placing his order and receiving the bill.
Xue alleges that this so-called "Healthy SF Mandate" is a scam designed to mislead customers into believing it is a legitimate government-mandated charge from the City and County of San Francisco. In reality, according to Xue’s complaint, no such mandate exists. The plaintiff argues that this hidden fee constitutes an unlawful practice aimed at increasing Routier's profits under false pretenses.
The lawsuit outlines three main causes of action: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq.), violation of False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code §§17500 et seq.), and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code §§1750 et seq.). Xue asserts that Routier has engaged in deceptive advertising by failing to disclose mandatory surcharges affecting product prices and inducing customer purchases through misleading menus.
In support of his claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Xue points out that Routier advertised certain prices with no intention of selling items at those prices due to the hidden surcharge. This practice allegedly harms competitors by making Routier’s prices appear cheaper than they actually are. Similarly, under the False Advertising Law, Xue contends that Routier’s failure to disclose these fees misleads customers into thinking they are paying less than they truly are.
The third cause of action under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act accuses Routier of unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts by advertising goods without intending to sell them as advertised. According to Civil Code §1770(a)(9), such practices are prohibited.
Xue seeks multiple forms of relief from the court. He demands actual damages for himself and punitive damages against Routier for their alleged misconduct. Additionally, he requests injunctive relief to prevent Routier from continuing these deceptive practices. Specifically, he wants an order mandating that Routier refund both him and all other customers who were charged this hidden "Healthy SF Mandate" fee. Furthermore, he seeks reimbursement for legal costs including filing fees and service process fees.
The case has been assigned Case Number CGC-24-615463 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. Plaintiff Alexander Xue is representing himself pro se in this matter.