Class Action Seeks More than $5 Million for Ritz-Carlton Menu Surcharge
The complaint alleges the hotel illegally attaches an automatic 18-20 percent gratuity to every food and beverage purchase through its restaurants, mini-bars and room service.
November 30, 2017 at 02:52 PM
3 minute read
A patron who says a surprise charge was tacked onto his restaurant check at a Florida Ritz-Carlton hotel is now the name plaintiff in a Miami class action seeking more than $5 million in damages.
Michael Fox, of New York, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida's Miami division, accusing the luxury hotel chain of fraud. He brought suit in federal court on behalf of all patrons who've purchased meals, drinks or snacks at Ritz-Carlton hotels across the state in the last four years.
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC's menus offer appetizers priced at $65 and grilled Japanese wagyu—highly marbled Kobe beef—for at least $112 for a four-ounce portion.
But what's harder to see, according to Fox's suit filed Tuesday in federal court, is a hidden surcharge—an automatic 18-20 percent gratuity tacked on to every food and beverage purchase through its restaurants, mini-bars and room service.
“Ritz-Carlton violates Florida law at the public food service establishments in its hotels in the State of Florida by failing to provide adequate notice on the restaurant's menu that an automatic gratuity or service charge of any amount would be added to a customer's check,” according to the complaint pending before U.S. District Senior Judge James Lawrence King.
Fox claims he dined at a Florida Ritz-Carlton restaurant in April and realized servers had added an 18 percent surcharge to his bill.
“There was no mention on the restaurant's menu, neither on the hard copy provided to plaintiff in the restaurant nor on the menu posted online on the hotel's website, that an automatic gratuity or service charge of any amount would be added to plaintiff's check,” according to the lawsuit.
During a visit later that month to another Ritz-Carlton property, Fox noted the “menu stated in small, italicized type” that “a suggested 18 percent gratuity” would appear on the bill.
“When he was done eating, plaintiff was presented with the check. Rather than a suggested gratuity that could be raised, lowered or removed from the check, there was a mandatory 18 percent service charge included,” according to the complaint. “The 18 percent service charge amount was included in the calculation of the charged taxes, despite the menu indicating that any automatic fee would be a non-taxable gratuity. Below the check total, there was an extra line for plaintiff to add an additional gratuity.”
Fox paid the check in full but filed a multimillion-dollar against the company.
Ritz-Carlton operates 10 Florida hotels, including properties in Coconut Grove, Amelia Island, Orlando, Miami Beach, Naples, Fort Lauderdale and Sarasota. Spokesman Jeff Flaherty said the Ritz-Carlton's parent company, Marriott International, had not been served the Nov. 28 lawsuit, and therefore could not comment.
The suit claims the hotel chain violated Florida laws requiring vendors to disclose automatic gratuities on menus and “on the face” of patrons' bills. The eight-count complaint demands a jury trial and alleges violation of Florida administrate code and statutes requiring disclosure of automatic surcharges.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida Supreme Court Paves Way for Attorney Fees Over $100k in Land Dispute
Miami’s Arbitration Week Aims To Cement City’s Status as Dispute Destination
3 minute readHit Song Ignites Multimillion-Dollar Legal Battle in South Florida
Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250