Can A Restaurant Require Patrons to Purchase Wine?

[Tom_G_l_a_s_g_o_w]

If there is a two bottle requirement, are they also responsible for the patrons drunk driving lawsuits?

This would be a serious issue in Oregon. Oregon law requires you to not to serve and to remove drinks from visibly intoxicated patrons. It takes few violations to lose your liquor license. And if a patron were in an accident, the restaurant would most certainly be in a liability situation.

Fortunately, the issue is moot.

[Greg_Ossi]

I looked at the screen shot Fu posted where they ‘politely decline substitutions’ right after they warn patrons they have peanuts and all kinds of allergans. If someone comes in and requests that they not have peanuts on top of their Pad Thai, do they really reject that?

14 year old kid here just died from analeptic seizure of some kind. That NFW substitutions policy is kind of whacked.

Arv- It may sound counterintuitive, but as a parent of a kid that has a severe peanut allergy, I very much appreciate knowing about the no substitutions rule in advance. And I am absolutely fine with that - I would much rather have a restaurant tell me they cannot accommodate his food allergies than try and fail. Quite frankly, we avoid Thai restaurants when eating with him because of the cross contamination risk.

Off topic - Now the good news is that there is a doc/program in Long Beach who has effectively “cured” most of his food allergies and we are tackling his peanut allergy next (he had several). If anyone wants more info - pm me.

[Barry_L_i_p_t_o_n]

Based on the facts it seems illegal as it discriminates against those whose religion forbid alcohol. Never mind health issues.

They could just have a minimum $$$ per table, which might accomplish their same objectives. But I see it’s been resolved.

I’ve enjoyed their take out. Charlie, I thought you had given a shout out to their aged fish, but is that in your current dietary repetoire? Maybe it was someone else.

[Jeff_M1]

Saw this earlier today on Twitter. Steakhouse mandating $100 minimum per customer. Never realized spending $100 would ensure a total enjoyable experience.

[Tom_G_l_a_s_g_o_w]

Saw this earlier today on Twitter. Steakhouse mandating $100 minimum per customer. Never realized spending $100 would ensure a total enjoyable experience.

image0.jpeg

You’re not a restaurant investor.

[Arv_R]

Saw this earlier today on Twitter. Steakhouse mandating $100 minimum per customer. Never realized spending $100 would ensure a total enjoyable experience.

image0.jpeg

I guess on the bright side, they are up front about the policy.

[Luca_Giupponi]

This would make my day. “But honey, we have to get two bottles!”

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

Saw this earlier today on Twitter. Steakhouse mandating $100 minimum per customer. Never realized spending $100 would ensure a total enjoyable experience.

image0.jpeg

I mean, you don’t get the total experience unless you order one of everything, right?

[brigcampbell]

restaurant in Philly

OFFICIALTRPE.com

[Arv_R]

someone shared a picture of their $100 dinner

Horse Renoir

[joejolesch]

Interesting…just have to go to Steak 44 instead for the lesser experience lol

[John_Danza]

Saw this earlier today on Twitter. Steakhouse mandating $100 minimum per customer. Never realized spending $100 would ensure a total enjoyable experience.

image0.jpeg

The blind guy at the bottom of the sign is appropriate for this kind of policy.

[John_Glas]

Wine Program - Anajak Thai Restaurant

The wine list was last updated in 2016.

[John_Glas]

Prices are not too bad but selection is very limited unless that wine list is not correct and they added more wine.

[John_Glas]

Chock this thread up to another classic wine board whine fest…

Didn’t you use this on another thread?

[John_Kight]

I’m not sure I understand the potential “illegality” of the policy, unless the actually seat minors and force them (or even allow them) to comply. But a restaurant that only seats 8 tables a night should be able to impose a 2-bottle minimum (and could even refuse to take reservations from minors, if they don’t want to make an exception).

Think of it this way…could a wine bar (or any bar, for that matter) require a purchase of wine (or alcohol)? What if they ONLY had wine for sale (and no food or other drinks)? Surely they could…although I would certainly offer up the advice that they would be better served to impose a minimum overall purchase, or charge a “cover charge” (which they could then apply to any alcohol purchase), etc…It’s hard to imagine some law saying that such an establishment can’t require a minimum purchase. Again, whether that is a “wise” policy is a different discussion altogether.

[Tom_G_l_a_s_g_o_w]

I’m not sure I understand the potential “illegality” of the policy, unless the actually seat minors and force them (or even allow them) to comply. But a restaurant that only seats 8 tables a night should be able to impose a 2-bottle minimum (and could even refuse to take reservations from minors, if they don’t want to make an exception).

Think of it this way…could a wine bar (or any bar, for that matter) require a purchase of wine (or alcohol)? What if they ONLY had wine for sale (and no food or other drinks)? Surely they could…although I would certainly offer up the advice that they would be better served to impose a minimum overall purchase, or charge a “cover charge” (which they could then apply to any alcohol purchase), etc…It’s hard to imagine some law saying that such an establishment can’t require a minimum purchase. Again, whether that is a “wise” policy is a different discussion altogether.

OP called ABC who told him the policy was illegal. A club license is likely different given the prevalence of minimums.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

I’m not sure I understand the potential “illegality” of the policy, unless the actually seat minors and force them (or even allow them) to comply. But a restaurant that only seats 8 tables a night should be able to impose a 2-bottle minimum (and could even refuse to take reservations from minors, if they don’t want to make an exception).

Think of it this way…could a wine bar (or any bar, for that matter) require a purchase of wine (or alcohol)? What if they ONLY had wine for sale (and no food or other drinks)? Surely they could…although I would certainly offer up the advice that they would be better served to impose a minimum overall purchase, or charge a “cover charge” (which they could then apply to any alcohol purchase), etc…It’s hard to imagine some law saying that such an establishment can’t require a minimum purchase. Again, whether that is a “wise” policy is a different discussion altogether.

You are trying to make sense of state and local ABC laws. I’m not sure that’s the right starting point.

It all depends on what kind of liquor license the establishment has and what the rules are for that license. It is quite common for restaurant licenses to have different rules than those for bar or a package store license. Part of these rules are designed (in many jurisdictions) to LIMIT alcohol sales (and require a bar or package license if you don’t want to live with those limits). For example, a requirement that no more than X% of your total sales can come from alcohol. It is not hard at all for me to envision a set of rules that some of these regulators could come up with in some jurisdiction under which it would be illegal for the holder of a restaurant license to force someone to buy a minimum amount of alcohol, in addition to the obvious illegality of doing so for underage patrons. I have no idea what the actual law is in this jurisdiction, of course, other than as reported by the OP re his call to the local ABC, but it’s not at all hard to imagine.