I’ve never had an issue with the service at this restaurant. Living right down the street, I’m a regular. Maybe I get different treatment because of this, but regardless you should be able to stand up for yourself and stop whining like a bunch of toddlers about 18% gratuity. If you think it wasn’t deserved, explain it to your server. I can guarantee they will be nothing but understanding about the situation IF you truly did not enjoy your food and have a great experience.

Again, it is a waste of time AND tax payer’s money to continue this. Head on over to Yelp if you’d like, bitch all you want to the public. But don’t do it at The Linkery, because they have a restaurant to run that they actually care about. And if you don’t want to support that, then go frequent some dive bar. I’ll happily enjoy my sausage and beer bread without your obnoxious complaints.

and

2.) Why not promote your restaurant as a place where tips are “not considered necessary” or whatever clever phrasing you want to give?

From what I understand about Europe, I believe the pay that restaurant workers receive is actually a liveable wage, and so significant tips are not at all considered necessary. Similar to what I’m recommending here.

Oh yea, and do you offer take-out, without the 18% “table” charge?

I’ve eaten here once, ordered an $8 beer (because of tax and service charge) directly from a bartender, then had very mediocre service. The prices are already bordering on ridiculous at this place and the average food and service and annoying service charge mean I won’t be back.

Probably a good idea that the City Attorney has apparently backed off at this time - if I was you, I’d still send a letter to the Office confirming who you spoke with and what you were told.

That said, I looked at your policy and advertising, and at the City Attorney’s letter. Besides your citation to the State tax code, a few things came to mind:

1. Bus. & Prof. Code 12024.2 - cited in the letter - actually regulates “commodities” under the overall statutory scheme that is policed by the Dept. of Food & Agriculture, in a division of the Code entitled “Weights and Measures.” “Commodities” as best I can tell are only defined at Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 58605. ” ‘Commodity,’ except as otherwise provided in Section 58747, means any agricultural, aquacultural, horticultural (including floricultural), vermicultural, viticultural (including wine)or vegetable product which is produced in this state, any fish or seafood, or any class, variety, or utilization of that product, either in its natural state or as processed by a processor or as processed by a producer for the purpose of marketing that product. It includes bees, honey, and milk as defined in Section 32511. It does not, however, include timber or any timber product.” The reason I mention all this is two-fold: (a) why didn’t the City Attorney allow the Food & Ag. Dept. to examine this first? “Commodities” are Food & Ag.’s domain; (b) and besides that, I never think of a “restaurant meal” as a “commodity” like other items packaged for sale where weight and measure - as they affect price - are concerned.

2. The City Attorney’s letter also cited Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500, the generic state “false advertising” law. However, when the accusation pertains to “price” issues, section 17500 is more specific: the government must prove that a price-related violation is “part of a PLAN or SCHEME [my emphasis] with the intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised.” Since you disclosed the service fee up-front, that was a pretty lousy “plan/scheme” you contrived - meaning, reasonably arguably, no “plan/scheme” at all.

3. Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17509(a) - which the City Attorney letter did NOT cite - I think better addresses the issue at hand because it specifically addresses services required to be purchased with product sales; it reads in pertinent part: “17509.(a) Any advertisement, including any advertisement over the Internet, soliciting the purchase or lease of a product or service, or any combination thereof, that requires, as a condition of sale, the purchase or lease of a different product or service, or any combination thereof, shall conspicuously disclose in the
advertisement the price of all those products or services.” When you disclosed the 18% service charge up front, you complied with this section, and there’s a rule of law that says a specific law trumps a general law, so this law controls. I guess folks can debate how “conspicuous” your disclosure is or was.

Anyhow, my thoughts. Take care.

Bill Newsome
Former Head Deputy,
City Attorney’s Consumer Protection Unit
(1985-1999)

I totally agree with you. We tried to make it clear we were using cheese instead of cheese curd, but really we should’ve gone the extra mile and sourced cheese curd instead. That’s our bad, even though (as you point out) it still tastes good.

Next time we run a poutine dish, we’ll have cheese curd.

Best
Jay

I’m glad that I’m not dumb enough to visit this rat hole!!!

Talk is cheap. Prove your superiority and non-A-hole-ness through your actions, not stupid little verbiage on your menu.

Count me among those sad to see Apertivo go away, but if you actually bought them out I won’t hold it against you! I assumed Linkery met a higher lease price.

Blessings,
Dave