The expert spoke about the imposed service fee in restaurants

A fee included in a receipt without the prior explicit consent of the consumer can be considered as an imposed service in the context of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection". Lawyer Mark Varshaver announced this in an interview with Izvestia on April 17.

It's warm, even warmer: spring revival in Moscow restaurants

The most notable events in the gastronomic life of the capital are in the Izvestia review

According to the expert, the legal qualification of such situations requires an analysis of the subject of the contract in accordance with art. 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Customer service — including serving dishes, serving and cleaning the table — does not constitute an independent property benefit and is considered as a technological part of the unified process of providing catering services. In this logic, personnel costs are initially included in the cost of production, and the allocation of "service" into a separate paid service is interpreted as an artificial fragmentation of the subject of the contract. In accordance with sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the RFPR, the conditions obliging to purchase additional services without the consent of the consumer are considered null and void under Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and do not require separate judicial confirmation.

"From a legal point of view, an attempt to separate the "service" into a separate paid service is untenable. Waiter service is an integral part of what the consumer is already paying for when ordering meals. To include its cost again, under a different name, means to receive payment twice for the same thing. That is why the courts classify such a fee as an imposed service, regardless of how the institution calls it," said lawyer Varshaver.

Separately, the position of the supervisory authorities and the courts is noted, which consistently recognize the inclusion of a service fee without an alternative as a violation of legal requirements. Rospotrebnadzor and arbitration courts indicate that this practice constitutes an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether information about the collection is indicated in the menu or on the website.

At the same time, not only the fact of informing is assessed, but also the possibility of the consumer refusing an additional payment. The introduction of Rules No. 1515 and Federal Law No. 69-FZ dated 04/07/2025, as noted, strengthened the legal grounds for bringing to justice. Sanctions under this rule provide for a fine for legal entities from 10 thousand to 20 thousand rubles, and for qualifications under Part 2.1 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation — from 200 thousand to 500 thousand rubles.

The situation is considered separately when the price in the menu does not correspond to the total amount in the receipt. The indication of the price in the menu is interpreted as a public offer in accordance with art. 437 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and the order is its acceptance. In this case, adding a service fee to the receipt qualifies as a unilateral change in the terms of the obligation, which is prohibited by art. 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Article 10 of the Law "On Consumer Rights Protection" obliges the contractor to provide complete and reliable information about the price of the service in rubles in advance before concluding the contract, and paragraph 11 of Rules No. 1515 directly links the cost of the service with the prices on the menu. The discrepancy between the menu and the receipt is considered as a sign of improper information, and in the practice of courts such actions are assessed through the prism of the doctrine of drip pricing (hidden additional fees) as a manifestation of unfair behavior.

"A visitor decides to enter a restaurant based on the prices on the menu. If the real amount is revealed only at the time of calculation, the person no longer has the opportunity to make an informed choice. The law calls this improper information, and the courts call it bad faith. Fine print at the end of the menu or a QR code with a link to the rules of the institution does not solve the problem, because the consumer should see the full price before ordering, and not after," explained Varshaver.