Shake Shack’s illegal hidden fees.

Shake Shack Accused of Hiding Fees Until Checkout to Inflate Bills
Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project

Shake Shack Accused of Hiding Fees Until Checkout to Inflate Bills

A class action lawsuit alleges Shake Shack systematically deceives online customers by concealing Service Fees and Courier Fees until the final payment screen, forcing consumers to pay more than advertised prices.

HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR

Shake Shack faces a class action lawsuit alleging it hides mandatory fees from customers ordering through its website and app. The complaint claims the company shows one price throughout checkout, then adds undisclosed Service Fees and Courier Fees only at the final payment screen. This drip pricing tactic allegedly deceives hundreds of thousands of customers into paying more than the advertised cost, violating California consumer protection laws.

This case reveals how hidden fees can turn advertised prices into bait-and-switch schemes.

$1.99
Advertised delivery fee that allegedly hides additional courier charges
$2.17
Service Fee added to plaintiff’s order without prior disclosure
$3.00
Courier Fee added to plaintiff’s order on top of delivery fee
100,000s
Estimated customers affected by hidden fee practices

The Allegations: A Breakdown

⚠️
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
01 Shake Shack conceals Service Fees and Courier Fees until the very last step of online checkout. Customers see a cart total throughout the ordering process, only to discover additional mandatory charges when they reach the payment screen. high
02 The company advertises a $1.99 Delivery Fee for food delivery orders but then adds a separate Courier Fee at checkout. This creates a second delivery charge that customers never agreed to and could not anticipate from the advertised price. high
03 Shake Shack applies Service Fees to all online and app orders, making every advertised food price false. The displayed item cost never represents what customers actually pay. high
04 The website provides no terms of service during the purchasing process. Users never see, review, or consent to any contract explaining these fees before completing their purchase. medium
05 Many customers never notice the hidden fees. Others believe they have no choice but to pay after investing time entering their information, exactly as the deceptive checkout practice intends. high
06 Shake Shack never discloses the nature or purpose of these fees. Consumers cannot tell what service they receive in exchange for the charges or whether the fees provide any benefit at all. medium
07 The company gains an unfair competitive advantage over restaurants that transparently disclose their prices. Other major fast food chains do not assess fees outside those properly disclosed at the start of an order. medium
08 This drip pricing strategy exploits psychological research showing consumers fixate on initial prices even after learning the true cost. People proceed with purchases rather than restart their search after investing effort. high
🏛️
Regulatory Failures
How oversight fell short · 6 points
01 Shake Shack violates FTC guidance requiring disclosures before consumers add items to their shopping cart. The company adds fees well after this point, failing to inform customers before they decide to buy. high
02 The practices meet the White House definition of junk fees: mandatory charges not transparently disclosed that lure consumers with low prices only to inflate them at the register. high
03 California amended its Consumer Legal Remedies Act in July 2024 to ban drip pricing. The new law requires advertised prices to be the full price customers pay, yet Shake Shack allegedly continues hiding mandatory fees. high
04 The California Department of Justice clarified that displaying a price less than what customers actually pay is deceptive. Businesses can itemize charges, but the advertised price must be the total. medium
05 The FTC found that sellers often misrepresent or inadequately disclose the nature of fees, leaving consumers wondering what they pay for. Shake Shack allegedly fits this exact pattern. medium
06 Federal guidance from 2013 states online disclosures should appear before consumers make buying decisions. Shake Shack ignores this by revealing fees only at the payment stage. medium
💰
Profit Over People
Prioritizing revenue over transparency · 6 points
01 Shake Shack engineers consumer confusion to boost profits. The multi-step checkout process obscures true costs, diverting sales that would otherwise go to transparent competitors. high
02 Research shows drip pricing works because brains fixate on initial prices. Even when hidden fees appear, consumers pay rather than shop around, believing further searching is not worthwhile. high
03 The company profits while customers who would have avoided the fees end up paying them. Defendant gains revenue while plaintiff and class members lose money. high
04 Small individual fee amounts aggregated across hundreds of thousands of customers represent a significant wealth transfer from consumers to the corporation. high
05 By obscuring charges, Shake Shack makes it impractical for consumers to compare prices. This junk fee strategy undermines the fair market competition that economic systems depend on. medium
06 The deceptive pricing gives Shake Shack an unfair upper hand. Competitors that fairly disclose fees lose business to a company hiding its true costs. medium
📉
Economic Fallout
Who paid the price · 6 points
01 Hundreds of thousands of Shake Shack customers paid Courier Fees and Service Fees for which they did not bargain. These consumers had no opportunity to avoid charges never disclosed until checkout. high
02 Plaintiff Aviva Copaken saw her cart total repeatedly displayed as $21.67, then discovered an additional $5.17 in fees at payment. She would not have purchased or would have used another merchant if the true cost was known. high
03 Consumers reasonably understand advertised prices to disclose the total cost for food and delivery. Shake Shack exploits this expectation by hiding mandatory charges. high
04 Class members conferred benefits on Shake Shack by paying fees they did not agree to and could not reasonably avoid. The company unjustly accepted these payments. medium
05 The burden falls on individuals to scrutinize every transaction step, a task made difficult by complex processes designed to obscure rather than illuminate final costs. medium
06 Without injunctive relief, Shake Shack will likely continue these deceptive practices. Consumers have no adequate remedy because the company keeps adding hidden fees to purchases. high
⚖️
Corporate Accountability Failures
Responsibility dodged · 7 points
01 Shake Shack knew or should have known its misrepresentations were false, deceptive, and misleading. The company intentionally designed a checkout process to hide costs until consumers were committed. high
02 The alleged violations include unfair business practices that offend established public policy of truthful advertising and fee disclosure in the marketplace. high
03 Shake Shack engaged in immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous activities that are substantially injurious to consumers. The harm to customers outweighs any utility of these practices. high
04 Reasonably available alternatives exist to further legitimate business interests without misleading consumers. Other major chains disclose fees upfront, proving transparent pricing is viable. medium
05 The company falsely advertised food prices and delivery costs, deceiving customers into purchases they otherwise would not make. This constitutes fraudulent business practices under California law. high
06 Shake Shack has been unjustly enriched through wrongful conduct. The company should disgorge unjust profits and make restitution to affected customers. high
07 The lack of contractual clarity compounds consumer harm. Users never see terms of service or understand their rights during the transaction. medium
📊
The Bottom Line
What this means · 6 points
01 This lawsuit represents a serious legal challenge to drip pricing tactics in the digital age. The detailed allegations and citation of specific regulations demonstrate substantive consumer harm. high
02 The case could set significant precedent for online pricing transparency, especially in California where new laws explicitly ban advertising prices below what customers actually pay. high
03 The fight is about more than extra dollars on burger orders. It concerns the principle of honest advertising and the power imbalance between large corporations and individual consumers. high
04 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring Shake Shack to clearly disclose true costs upfront so consumers can make informed decisions. medium
05 The outcome will test whether consumer protection laws can keep pace with sophisticated digital pricing strategies designed to disadvantage buyers. medium
06 This case highlights ongoing needs for robust consumer protection laws, vigilant enforcement, and class actions as mechanisms to hold corporations accountable. medium

Timeline of Events

November 2024
Plaintiff Aviva Copaken places food delivery order via Shake Shack app and is charged undisclosed Service Fee and Courier Fee
December 16, 2024
Class action complaint filed in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
February 27, 2025
Case filed in federal court as Case 2:25-cv-01734

Direct Quotes from the Legal Record

QUOTE 1 Deceptive pricing concealed until final step allegations
“On the payment screen consumers are surprised with a so-called ‘Courier Fee’ and ‘Service Fee’.”

💡 This shows Shake Shack deliberately hides mandatory fees until customers have invested time and effort in their orders.

QUOTE 2 False delivery fee representation allegations
“For orders for delivery, Shake Shack represents that the fee for delivery is just $1.99.”

💡 The advertised delivery fee is false because Shake Shack adds a separate Courier Fee on top of this amount.

QUOTE 3 Never disclosed to consumers allegations
“Shake Shack omits and conceals material facts about Shake Shack’s food and delivery service, never once informing consumers in any disclosure, at any time, that they will incur on all orders a ‘Service Fee’ and for delivery orders, a ‘Courier Fee’ in addition to the Delivery Fee advertised at $1.99.”

💡 This demonstrates systematic concealment of costs throughout the entire ordering process.

QUOTE 4 Hundreds of thousands harmed economic
“Hundreds of thousands of Shake Shack customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden fees for which they did not bargain.”

💡 The scale of alleged harm extends to a massive class of consumers nationwide.

QUOTE 5 Reasonable consumer expectations violated allegations
“Consumers like Plaintiff reasonably understand Shake Shack’s advertised price to disclose the total cost they will pay for their food and to have their food delivered.”

💡 This explains why consumers cannot anticipate or avoid these hidden charges.

QUOTE 6 Unfair competitive advantage profit
“By unfairly obscuring its true costs, Shake Shack deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true prices and fees.”

💡 The deceptive practice harms both consumers and honest businesses competing in the marketplace.

QUOTE 7 Definition of junk fees regulatory
“Junk fees are fees that are mandatory but not transparently disclosed to consumers. Consumers are lured in with the promise of a low price, but when they get to the register, they discover that price was never really available.”

💡 This White House definition perfectly describes Shake Shack’s alleged conduct.

QUOTE 8 FTC on hidden fee harms regulatory
“Many consumers said that sellers often do not advertise the total amount they will have to pay, and disclose fees only after they are well into completing the transaction. They also said that sellers often misrepresent or do not adequately disclose the nature or purpose of certain fees, leaving consumers wondering what they are paying for or if they are getting anything at all for the fee charged.”

💡 Federal regulators recognized the exact deceptive pattern Shake Shack allegedly employs.

QUOTE 9 California law requires full price disclosure regulatory
“The price listed or advertised to the consumer must be the full price that the consumer is required to pay.”

💡 California’s new anti-drip-pricing law directly prohibits Shake Shack’s alleged practices.

QUOTE 10 Knowing the price is essential to competition regulatory
“Knowing the price of a good of service is essential to competition, and displaying a price that is less than what the customer will actually be charged is deceptive.”

💡 This California Department of Justice statement explains why hidden fees undermine fair markets.

QUOTE 11 Drip pricing psychological exploitation profit
“Our brains tend to fix on the price we first encountered even after we learn the total cost. And even when consumers learn about the hidden fees, they often pay up rather than shop around because they figure that investing more time into searching for it will not be worthwhile.”

💡 This reveals the psychological mechanism Shake Shack allegedly exploits to trap consumers into paying more.

QUOTE 12 Plaintiff would not have purchased economic
“Plaintiff would not have made the purchase if she had known that Shake Shack would tack on additional fees.”

💡 This demonstrates actual consumer harm and reliance on the false advertised prices.

QUOTE 13 No terms of service binding accountability
“During the multi-step process, users are never provided with Shake Shack’s terms of service; are never required to view such terms of service; and are never required to affirmatively consent to terms of service.”

💡 Consumers have no contractual notice or agreement regarding these fees.

QUOTE 14 Competitors do not engage in this practice accountability
“Indeed, other major fast-food chains in the U.S. do not assess fees outside of those properly disclosed at the outset of a consumer’s order.”

💡 This proves transparent pricing is viable and Shake Shack’s deception is a choice, not a necessity.

QUOTE 15 Many consumers never notice the fees profit
“Many consumers do not notice these fees are being added to their order. Others believe that they have no choice but to pay these fees. And others still notice the previously undisclosed fees but decide to go through with the purchase anyway unsure of how it can be removed from their Cart after it was automatically added: they have already invested substantial time and effort inputting their information into the Shake Shack’s system.”

💡 This describes exactly how the deceptive checkout design achieves its profit-maximizing goal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What fees does Shake Shack allegedly hide from customers?
Shake Shack allegedly conceals Service Fees on all online and app orders, and Courier Fees on delivery orders. These fees only appear at the final payment screen, after customers have entered their information and believe they know the total cost.
How does the hidden fee scheme work?
Customers see an advertised price and cart total throughout the ordering process. Only at the last step, on the payment screen, does Shake Shack add mandatory Service Fees and Courier Fees that were never previously disclosed. By this point, customers have invested time and often proceed with the purchase despite the price increase.
What is drip pricing?
Drip pricing is advertising a low initial price, then adding mandatory fees later in the buying process. Research shows consumers fixate on the first price they see and often complete purchases even after hidden fees appear, rather than starting their search over.
Is drip pricing illegal?
Yes, California banned drip pricing in July 2024. The new law requires businesses to advertise the full price customers will pay, including all mandatory fees. Federal regulators also classify hidden mandatory fees as deceptive junk fees that harm consumers and competition.
How much did the plaintiff pay in hidden fees?
Plaintiff Aviva Copaken ordered food shown as costing $21.67. At checkout, Shake Shack added a $2.17 Service Fee and $3.00 Courier Fee, totaling $5.17 in previously undisclosed charges, bringing her actual cost to $26.84.
How many customers were affected?
The lawsuit alleges hundreds of thousands of Shake Shack customers in California have been charged these hidden fees when ordering through the website or app.
What does Shake Shack say the Service Fee and Courier Fee are for?
According to the complaint, Shake Shack never discloses what these fees pay for or whether customers receive any benefit from them. The company provides no explanation of the nature or purpose of the charges.
Does the advertised $1.99 delivery fee cover delivery?
No. The lawsuit alleges Shake Shack advertises delivery for $1.99 but then adds a separate Courier Fee at checkout. This means the true delivery cost is the $1.99 fee plus the undisclosed Courier Fee.
Did customers agree to these fees?
No. The complaint states Shake Shack never provides terms of service during the ordering process. Users are never required to view or affirmatively consent to any agreement explaining these fees.
What does the lawsuit want Shake Shack to do?
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and restitution for fees paid, plus an injunction requiring Shake Shack to clearly disclose the true total cost of food and delivery upfront, before customers add items to their cart.
What can I do if I was charged these hidden fees?
If you ordered from Shake Shack’s website or app in California and were charged Service Fees or Courier Fees, you may be part of the class action. Monitor the case for opportunities to join or file a claim. You can also report deceptive pricing to the California Attorney General or Federal Trade Commission.
Do other restaurants hide fees like this?
According to the lawsuit, other major fast food chains in the United States do not assess fees outside those properly disclosed at the start of an order. Shake Shack’s alleged practice gives it an unfair advantage over competitors who price transparently.
Post ID: 4426  ·  Slug: shake-shack-lawsuit-hidden-fees-drip-pricing  ·  Original: 2025-06-06  ·  Rebuilt: 2026-03-20

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

Aleeia
Aleeia

I'm Aleeia, the creator of this website.

I have 6+ years of experience as an independent researcher covering corporate misconduct, sourced from legal documents, regulatory filings, and professional legal databases.

My background includes a Supply Chain Management degree from Michigan State University's Eli Broad College of Business, and years working inside the industries I now cover.

Every post on this site was either written or personally reviewed and edited by me before publication.

Learn more about my research standards and editorial process by visiting my About page

Articles: 1741
🏳️‍⚧️ trans rights are human rights 🏳️‍⚧️
Theme