- Статьи
- Society
- Without notice: Moscow cafes have increasingly begun to include tips in the receipt when paying
Without notice: Moscow cafes have increasingly begun to include tips in the receipt when paying
The practice of automatically including the service fee in the bill has become the norm for restaurants for some time. Some establishments add 10% "service fee" or "service fee" to everyone, others only on weekends or when booking with the company. In Moscow, such situations are often found at the StandUp show, surcharges are written in small font at the end of the menu or receipt. Meanwhile, the legal regime for such payments is strictly defined, and it is not in favor of institutions. For more information, see the Izvestia article.
Is it legal to pay a service fee in a restaurant without the customer's consent
The relationship between the restaurant and the customer is qualified as a contract for the provision of paid services (art. 779 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Tips are by their legal nature a gift (Article 572 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation): the constitutive feature of such a transaction is voluntary commitment on the part of the donor. Lawyers point out that as soon as an institution makes tips mandatory, they lose the nature of a gift and turn into an additional paid service imposed on the consumer.
The inclusion of such payments in the receipt without the consumer's consent is expressly prohibited by clause 19 of the Rules for the Provision of Catering Services, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 09/21/2020 No. 1515 (Rules No. 1515).
— The contractor is not entitled, without the consent of the consumer, to include in the contract payments, commissions, surcharges, tips and other expenses not included in the price of the products on the menu. According to clause 11 of the same rules, the price of the service is determined by the cost of the products indicated in the menu. Any payment over and above the menu is not the price of the contract and requires separate consent," lawyer Mark Varshaver said in an interview with Izvestia.
Since September 1, 2025, the norm has received additional legislative consolidation. Federal Law No. 69-FZ of 04/07/2025 introduced Clause 3.1 in Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection" (hereinafter referred to as the RFPR), according to which the sale of additional services for a fee is carried out exclusively with the consent of the consumer. Consent is given in writing, the burden of proving its existence is placed on the contractor, and automatic marking of consent is expressly prohibited. The refund period at the consumer's request is three days.
— The key mistake of many restaurateurs is that they confuse informing with obtaining consent. It is not enough to place a line about the collection in the menu or on the website. Since September 2025, the law explicitly requires written consent, issued prior to the provision of the service, and places the burden of proving its availability on the institution. If the restaurant cannot produce such a document, it is its responsibility to refund the money, and not the subject of negotiations," said lawyer Varshaver.
What should I do if the service fee has already been included in the receipt?
If, nevertheless, the consumer does not want to pay extra, then experts remind that money written off without consent is unjustified enrichment of the institution (art. 1102 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) — an independent basis for a refund, independent of the restaurant's fault. In addition to the conditional requirement, a written claim should be submitted: clause 3.1 of Article 16 of the RFPR obliges to satisfy it within three days. In case of refusal, it is necessary to file a complaint with the territorial administration of Rospotrebnadzor and a statement of claim to the court at the place of residence of the consumer or the location of the defendant (art. 17 of the RFPR). The state fee is not charged for a claim price of up to 1 million rubles.
In court, the consumer has the right to recover the amount of the imposed service, compensation for moral damage (art. 15 of the GDPR) and a fine of 50% of the amount awarded for refusing to satisfy the claim voluntarily (paragraph 6 of art. 13 of the GDPR). The fine is levied by the court automatically, regardless of whether the consumer has declared it separately (paragraph 46 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2012 No. 17 "On consideration by courts of civil cases on consumer rights protection disputes"). Since February 1, 2026, Federal Law No. 500-FZ of 12/28/2025 has limited the cases of fine collection: it does not apply if the claim was not satisfied due to the fault of the consumer himself.
Is the collection an imposed service by law
Lawyers point out that the service fee is an imposed service under art. 16 of the RFPR, provided that this money is included in the receipt without the prior explicit consent of the consumer.
Customer service (serving dishes, serving, cleaning the table) does not constitute an independent property benefit, follows from art. 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. We are talking about the technological part of the unified process of providing catering services, personnel costs initially form the cost of products sold. An attempt to separate the "service" into a separate paid service is an artificial fragmentation of the subject of the contract. By virtue of clauses 5 and 6 of Clause 2 of Article 16 of the RFPR, the conditions stipulating the purchase of some services by compulsory purchase of others and providing for the performance of additional services for a fee without the consent of the consumer are void by virtue of Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and they are void automatically, without the need for judicial recognition.
— 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 what the institution calls it," says Mark Varshaver.
Rospotrebnadzor consistently confirms this position in practice. Arbitration courts, reviewing disputes about service fees, consistently state that the non—alternative inclusion of an additional payment in a check constitutes an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), regardless of whether information about the fee was posted on the menu or on the institution's website. The courts evaluate not only the availability of information about the collection, but also the availability of information about the right to refuse. Just mentioning it in the menu is not enough. With the adoption of Rules No. 1515 and Federal Law No. 69-FZ dated 04/07/2025, the legal grounds for bringing to justice have only become more significant.
Administrative liability under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for a fine for legal entities from 10 thousand to 20 thousand rubles. When qualified under Part 2.1 of the same article (the imposition of additional services in specific forms provided for by the norm), the sanction is significantly higher — from 200 thousand rubles to 500 thousand rubles.
Why does the service fee in the receipt not match the price in the menu
The price indication in the menu is a public offer (Article 437 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). When making an order, the consumer accepts it on the proposed terms. The appearance of an additional line in the final receipt is an unacceptable unilateral change in an already existing obligation (art. 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Since the agreement between the restaurant and the consumer is not an entrepreneurial one for both parties, the right to unilaterally change its terms can be granted only to the consumer as a non-entrepreneurial party, but not to the institution.
Article 10 of the RFRA obliges the contractor to provide complete and reliable information on the price of the service in rubles in a timely manner, and before concluding the contract. The requirement is specified in clause 11 of the Rules No. 1515: the price of the service is determined by the cost of the products listed on the menu, the lawyers note. The discrepancy between the price in the menu and the amount in the receipt itself indicates inadequate information.
The practice of so-called drip pricing (hidden additional fees), when the final price is disclosed only at the calculation stage, is recognized by the courts as the basis for qualifying the actions of the institution as unfair (art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The burden of proving that the consumer is properly informed lies with the contractor (paragraph 28 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2012 No. 17).
— The visitor decides to enter the 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 establishment does not solve the problem, because the consumer should see the full price before ordering, not after," explains Mark Varshaver.
How is the service fee in the restaurant taxed?
The tax consequences of the service fee depend on exactly how the money flows. The same 10% payment can have a different tax status: it can be the revenue of a restaurant with subsequent taxes or the personal income of an employee without taxation, depending on the transfer method.
If the payment is included in the receipt, all receipts to the account or to the cashier are recognized as the proceeds of the institution. In this case, they are subject to taxes, including VAT (starting in 2026 at a rate of 22%), and the calculation itself must be carried out through a cash register.
If the restaurant then distributes this money among the employees, a second tax obligation arises: such payments are considered as part of the employment relationship. The employer must withhold personal income tax and charge insurance premiums. Attempts to arrange these amounts as "informal tips" and circumvent taxes face fines ranging from 20 to 40% of the unpaid amount.
Another situation is when a guest tips directly to the waiter, in cash or by transfer to a personal card. In this case, the money is received by an individual, not an organization, so cash registers are not used. Such payments are considered a gift and are not subject to personal income tax.
— In practice, a gray scheme is common: the collection is punched through the cashier, and then distributed to staff without taxes. The violation here is twofold — consumer and tax at the same time. During a tax audit, the scheme is easily revealed: comparing the fiscal data of the CCT with the accrued wage fund gives a discrepancy that cannot be explained. 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation — a fine of 20% of the unpaid amount, and with intent — 40%. If the money was collected in cash past the cash register, liability is added under Part 2 of Article 14.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation: a fine for legal entities from 75 to 100% of the settlement amount, but not less than 30 thousand rubles, and in case of repeated violation in excess of 1 million rubles, suspension of activity for up to 90 days, explains Mark Varshaver.
Lawyers point out that the legal structure of the service fee is permissible only if three conditions are strictly observed: preliminary and visual informing of the consumer about the amount of the fee, explicit written consent prior to the provision of the service, and correct fiscalization through the CCT. The intermediate model, in which the payment is referred to as a tip, but is actually mandatory and is disclosed only during the calculation, is highly likely to be qualified as a violation of several norms at once — Articles 10 and 16 of the GDPR, paragraph 19 of Rules No. 1515, Part 2 or Part 2.1 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation with all the consequences in the form of a refund. a fine in favor of the consumer, administrative liability, and tax surcharges.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
