A San Francisco café is facing serious allegations of deceptive pricing practices that could impact countless consumers. Alexander Xue filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, on November 5, 2024, against Sweet Jane’s, LLC. The lawsuit accuses the café of engaging in illegal bait-and-switch tactics by advertising low prices but charging higher amounts through undisclosed fees.
According to the complaint, Alexander Xue visited "Jane on Fillmore," a café operated by Sweet Jane’s, LLC, on November 4, 2024. During his visit, Xue observed advertised prices for an Arnold Palmer beverage and a chocolate croissant at $4 and $5.75 respectively. However, upon receiving his receipt after payment, he noticed an additional charge labeled as “Employee Benefit Mandate (7%)” amounting to $2.05 was added to his pre-tax total. This fee was represented as a tax on the point-of-sale system but was neither disclosed nor optional according to Xue's observations.
Xue alleges that this practice violates several California laws including Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq., which prohibits unlawful business acts or practices; §§17500 et seq., which addresses false advertising; and Civil Code §§1750 et seq., known as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). He argues that these fees are not clearly disclosed as required by law and are misleadingly presented as mandatory taxes or government mandates when they are not.
The plaintiff claims that Sweet Jane’s has been deceiving customers with these hidden charges and is seeking relief from the court. Specifically, Xue demands actual damages and punitive damages along with injunctive relief to prevent further deceptive practices by Sweet Jane’s. He also seeks an order mandating compliance with all relevant consumer protection laws and disgorgement of any illicit gains obtained through this alleged scheme.
Representing himself pro se in this legal battle, Alexander Xue emphasizes the importance of transparency in consumer transactions and urges the court to uphold consumer rights against unfair business practices. The case has been assigned Case Number CGC-24-619516 but does not list any attorneys representing either party nor does it mention specific judges involved.