The Maze: US regulators are taking restaurant software company Toast to court over alleged hidden fees and subscription barriers. The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces consumer protection laws, joined state officials in the October 29 lawsuit. Toast disputes the claims. The case is pending; no liability finding has been established.
The Details:
Two customer relationships, one platform. Toast supplies the systems restaurants use to take orders and accept payments. Restaurants pay for recurring software services. Diners also encounter Toast when ordering food online. The complaint challenges allegedly misleading hardware prices, unwanted subscription add-ons and promised round-the-clock support that customers struggled to obtain. These are claims by the government plaintiffs, not court findings. Their case spans what restaurants agreed to buy, what they were charged and how they could leave. That makes the contract and the practical billing process central to the dispute.
The 99-cent fee is historical. The complaint describes a US$0.99 charge on online orders greater than US$10, with the proceeds going to Toast rather than the restaurant. It alleges that grouping the charge under “Taxes & Fees” obscured who benefited. Crucially, Toast announced its removal in July 2023, and the complaint acknowledges the rollback. The plaintiffs allege that the proceeds were not refunded. This lawsuit therefore does not establish that diners are still paying that fee. Toast’s contemporaneous explanation was that the charge would support product investment and keep restaurant costs low; customer feedback prompted its reversal.
A cancellation request is not a stopped bill. The complaint describes written notice, calls, transfers and an account deactivation form requiring internal processing. It alleges continued charges and surprise termination fees. It also acknowledges a partial improvement: from March 2025, some customers could use an online Subscriptions Hub to request removal of add-on services. The plaintiffs say internal approval still controlled those requests, and core subscriptions could not be cancelled online. Toast rejects the allegations. It argues that the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, a law addressing online subscriptions, does not cover negotiated business contracts. That is a contested legal position, not a ruling.
MarketMaze Take: The interesting commercial fault line is who controls a charge and who carries the customer’s irritation. The historical fee went to Toast, while restaurants quoted in the complaint feared diners would blame them. Those accounts do not prove lost sales. They do explain why checkout disclosure matters beyond the size of the fee.
The customer relationship has a price. For operators outside the US, the useful lesson is to separate the party collecting a checkout fee from the business expected to explain it. A restaurant’s own ordering channel can still contain pricing decisions made by its software provider. This case concerns US conduct; it creates no worldwide legal rule.
Exit needs an operational definition. An online request button and a cancelled subscription are different outcomes. The alleged gap between them helps explain the cancellation dispute. Toast’s strongest objection remains that its customers negotiate their contracts. The court must assess the claims and requested remedies; an injunction or repayment has been sought, not awarded.
