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.
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.
The Allegations: A Breakdown
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
“On the payment screen consumers are surprised with a so-called ‘Courier Fee’ and ‘Service Fee’.”
๐ก This shows Shake Shack deliberately hides mandatory fees until customers have invested time and effort in their orders.
“For orders for delivery, Shake Shack represents that the fee for delivery is just $1.99.”
๐ก The advertised delivery fee is false because Shake Shack adds a separate Courier Fee on top of this amount.
“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.”
๐ก This demonstrates systematic concealment of costs throughout the entire ordering process.
“Hundreds of thousands of Shake Shack customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden fees for which they did not bargain.”
๐ก The scale of alleged harm extends to a massive class of consumers nationwide.
“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.”
๐ก This explains why consumers cannot anticipate or avoid these hidden charges.
“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.”
๐ก The deceptive practice harms both consumers and honest businesses competing in the marketplace.
“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.”
๐ก This White House definition perfectly describes Shake Shack’s alleged conduct.
“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.”
๐ก Federal regulators recognized the exact deceptive pattern Shake Shack allegedly employs.
“The price listed or advertised to the consumer must be the full price that the consumer is required to pay.”
๐ก California’s new anti-drip-pricing law directly prohibits Shake Shack’s alleged practices.
“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.”
๐ก This California Department of Justice statement explains why hidden fees undermine fair markets.
“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.”
๐ก This reveals the psychological mechanism Shake Shack allegedly exploits to trap consumers into paying more.
“Plaintiff would not have made the purchase if she had known that Shake Shack would tack on additional fees.”
๐ก This demonstrates actual consumer harm and reliance on the false advertised prices.
“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.”
๐ก Consumers have no contractual notice or agreement regarding these fees.
“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.”
๐ก This proves transparent pricing is viable and Shake Shack’s deception is a choice, not a necessity.
“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.”
๐ก This describes exactly how the deceptive checkout design achieves its profit-maximizing goal.
Frequently Asked Questions
๐ก Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day โ from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- ๐ Product Safety Violations โ When companies risk lives for profit.
- ๐ฟ Environmental Violations โ Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- ๐ผ Labor Exploitation โ Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- ๐ก๏ธ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses โ Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- ๐ต Financial Fraud & Corruption โ Lies, scams, and executive impunity.