As businesses figure out how to be creative and continue to operate during the pandemic, some have turned to “Covid surcharges” to account for new or increased costs. “Surcharges” may seem more benign than direct price increases. Still, they need to be considered with an eye towards compliance with local price gouging laws.

To the extent surcharges are put in place to reflect cost increases, they may fall within allowable price gouging exceptions. Even businesses whose products or services are covered by their relevant state price gouging laws may be able to add surcharges, since many state price gouging statutes provide exceptions for increases directly attributable to increases in the cost of labor or materials.

Consumer-facing business are experimenting with different methods to account for their new costs, such as increasing the price on specific menu items that are now more expensive to provide, or adding small fees or surcharges to a bill to offset the overall added costs of operating, to varying customer responses. Many restaurant surcharges seem to be minor, with recent examples from Florida reflecting fees around 3 percent of a total bill. There are similar reports of hair salons that have added surcharges of a few dollars to cover the costs of additional cleaning and sanitation measures.

These surcharges do not appear to have drawn many official complaints under price gouging frameworks. A spokesman for New York’s attorney general told the Wall Street Journal that, at the time of publication, the New York office had not yet received any complaints about “surcharges,” while a spokesman for the Missouri attorney general’s office reported one complaint about “surcharges” out of a total of 1,501 price-gouging complaints.

At least one state has received complaints about a particular business’s surcharge, and found the surcharge in question to be permissible. The Rhode Island attorney general’s office reportedly received numerous complaints about a business charging customers an optional 2% surcharge, which they explained was intended to cover hazard pay for their front-line employees. Because the charge was optional, and had been clearly and prominently disclosed throughout the store, the attorney general found no laws had been violated.

Health care providers may also wish to utilize such a surcharge. They indisputably have additional expenses to cover, as infection control and prevention have led to increasing personal protective equipment costs. As noted in a recent “Price Gouging Weekly Round Up,” however, local officials have noted the surcharges imposed by dentists in Maryland and Tennessee, and their responses serve as a reminder that their respective state price increase regulations still apply.

Regardless of the new costs that businesses and providers are shouldering, they are expected to comply with their state’s limitations on price increases, which may, e.g., ban “exorbitant” or “unconscionable” prices increases,” cap them at a specific percentage, or simply bar any price increases at all. A surcharge may be permissible in some circumstances, but businesses should remain cognizant of the risks and regulations when implementing any new pricing strategies.

*      *      *

Visit Proskauer on Price Gouging for antitrust insights on Covid-19.

*      *      *

Proskauer’s cross-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional Coronavirus Response Team is focused on supporting and addressing client concerns. Visit our Coronavirus Resource Center for guidance on risk management measures, practical steps businesses can take and resources to help manage ongoing operations.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kelly Landers Hawthorne Kelly Landers Hawthorne

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Mass Torts & Product Liability Groups. She represents clients in litigations and due diligence across a range of industries, including consumer products, life sciences, healthcare, education…

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Mass Torts & Product Liability Groups. She represents clients in litigations and due diligence across a range of industries, including consumer products, life sciences, healthcare, education, hospitality, sports and entertainment.

Kelly also maintains a diverse pro bono practice. She received Proskauer’s Golden Gavel Award for excellence in pro bono work in 2019.

She is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Minding Your Business blog, where she authors articles related to price gouging issues.

Kelly is also a member of the Proskauer Women’s Alliance Steering Committee, where she serves on subcommittees focused on highlighting and providing professional development opportunities for women at the firm.

Prior to her legal career, Kelly was a Teach For America corps member and taught middle school in Washington, DC.

While at Columbia Law School, Kelly served as an articles editor of the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts and interned for the Honorable Sandra Townes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Photo of John R. Ingrassia John R. Ingrassia

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating…

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating to competition and antitrust, CFIUS or foreign investment issues.

For more than 25 years, John has counselled businesses facing the most challenging antitrust issues and helped them stay out of the crosshairs — whether its distribution, pricing, channel management, mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, or price gouging compliance.

John’s practice focuses on the analysis and resolution of CFIUS and antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, and the analysis and assessment of pre-merger CFIUS and HSR notification requirements. He advises clients on issues related to CFIUS national security reviews, and on CFIUS submissions when non-U.S. buyers seek to acquire U.S. businesses that have national security sensitivities.  He also regularly advises clients on international antitrust issues arising in proposed acquisitions and joint ventures, including reportability under the EC Merger Regulation and numerous other foreign merger control regimes.

His knowledge, reputation and extensive experience with the legal, practical, and technical requirements of merger clearance make him a recognized authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review. John is regularly invited to participate in Federal Trade Commission and bar association meetings and takes on the issues of the day.

Photo of Christopher E. Ondeck Christopher E. Ondeck

Chris Ondeck is head of the Washington, DC office and co-chair of the Firm’s Antitrust Group. Chris is one of the most highly rated antitrust trial lawyers in the United States. In 2023, he won the largest antitrust jury trial of the year…

Chris Ondeck is head of the Washington, DC office and co-chair of the Firm’s Antitrust Group. Chris is one of the most highly rated antitrust trial lawyers in the United States. In 2023, he won the largest antitrust jury trial of the year, and one of the largest in history, by defending Sanderson Farms as the sole non-settling defendant where the direct purchaser plaintiffs alleged $7 billion in damages. The significance of the trial victory was widely reported by Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, and other publications, calling it a “blockbuster case.” Law360 noted that Chris “blasted” the plaintiffs’ assertions at trial and called it one of the biggest trial decisions of the year. Chris and his team were named Litigators of the Week by the American Lawyer. Benchmark Litigation also shortlisted Chris for antitrust litigator of the year in 2023.

Chris is a go-to litigator for clients in high-profile antitrust matters, including AARP, Amtrak, AT&T, Butterball, Cardinal Health, Continental Resources, Daybreak Foods, Discovery, DuPont, Ocean Spray, SpaceX, Sunkist, Wayne Sanderson Farms, Welch’s, and Weyerhaeuser. He also has 30-years’ expertise with the Capper-Volstead Act’s application and interpretation for agricultural cooperatives, and serves as outside counsel to a large number of industry groups, including trade associations and cooperatives.

Chris has been recognized as a leading antitrust practitioner by Chambers, noting that clients describe him as “our primary thought partner – he’s very good at explaining the complex issues and making them easy to understand” and praising “his strong advocacy skills”; by The National Law Review as a “Go To Thought Leader”; by Acritas as a “Star” for multiple years; by Benchmark Litigation as a National Litigation Star; and by The Legal 500 United States for Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions.