Platforms Must Have Written Restaurant Agreements

Summary#

This bill would stop third-party websites or apps from listing, promoting, selling, or otherwise making restaurant reservations available unless they have a written agreement with the restaurant (or a contract holder the restaurant authorized). It makes breaking that rule an unfair or deceptive practice that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can enforce. It also bans contract clauses that force restaurants to indemnify (pay for costs or legal claims caused by) the reservation service.

• Main change: Third-party reservation services must have a written agreement with a food service establishment or its authorized designee before offering reservations for that place.
• Enforcement: Violations are treated like unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act, so the FTC can investigate and impose penalties.
• Indemnity ban: Any contract term requiring a restaurant to indemnify the reservation service for harms caused by the service is void.
• Scope: The bill covers a wide range of places where people eat or drink, including restaurants, bars, tasting rooms, and outlets inside airports, stadiums, hotels, or retail complexes.
• Timing: The rule would start 180 days after the law is enacted.

What it means for you#

• Restaurants and food-service operators

  • Must negotiate and sign written agreements if they want third-party services to list or sell their reservations.
  • Gain the right to prevent platforms from advertising or selling reservations without that agreement.
  • Cannot be forced by those agreements to cover legal costs or damages caused by the platform’s actions (indemnity clauses that do so are void).

• Third‑party reservation services (websites, apps)

  • Must stop listing or selling reservations for any establishment unless they have a written agreement with that establishment or its authorized designee.
  • May need to remove listings or stop offering reservations for places that have not signed an agreement.
  • Face FTC enforcement and possible penalties if they violate the rule.

• Consumers / diners

  • Could see fewer restaurants available through some apps or sites if those services do not secure written agreements.
  • May need to use a restaurant’s own booking system or call directly in some cases.

• Venues inside larger complexes (airports, hotels, stadiums)

  • The bill treats restaurants inside these places the same as standalone restaurants; listing them still requires a written agreement with the specific food service establishment or its designee.

• Federal regulators

  • The FTC would handle enforcement as it does for other unfair or deceptive practices.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on estimated public costs or a fiscal note is provided in the bill text or summary.

• This could increase FTC enforcement work; the bill gives the FTC clear authority to enforce the rule.
• Platforms and restaurants may face compliance costs to negotiate and document written agreements.
• There may be legal or administrative costs if disputes over listings or indemnity clauses go to litigation or FTC action.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to protect restaurants’ control over reservation distribution and contractual terms. Possible arguments in favour include:

• It could ensure restaurants decide who may sell or advertise reservations for their business.
• It could prevent platforms from listing places without the establishment’s consent.
• It removes contract language that would shift liability from the platform to the restaurant for harms caused by the platform.
• It may promote clearer business relationships and accountability between establishments and reservation services.

Opponents' View#

The bill creates possible trade-offs and leaves some implementation questions. Reasonable concerns based on the bill’s text include:

• One concern is that requiring written agreements could reduce the number of restaurants listed on third‑party services, which could inconvenience consumers and reduce visibility for restaurants that want free listings.
• The bill does not define the required content or form of a “written agreement” (for example, whether electronic acceptance counts), which may create disputes.
• It is unclear how the rule applies to services that aggregate publicly available information, to informal listing arrangements, or to services operated by third parties on behalf of an establishment.
• The enforcement burden on the FTC could grow, and the bill does not provide a cost estimate for that enforcement.
• Smaller or new reservation platforms may face higher compliance costs, which could reduce competition or innovation in the space.