In this Weekly Wrap, we’re looking at a legal take on “The Bear,” coffee tariffs, the multipurpose restaurant concept, and more.
Delivery News
The Headline: “Third-party delivery regulation issues continue in cities like New York and Seattle”
The Source: Nation’s Restaurant News
What You Need to Know:
Although some cities still have pandemic-era delivery fee caps in place, others like New York City are easing back on restrictions. In May 2020, New York City implemented a 15% delivery fee cap for platforms like Grubhub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash, which was made permanent in August 2020. This led to the three delivery giants suing the City Council, calling it an unconstitutional “extreme measure” that would harm the consumer because fees would then be passed on to them.
In May 2025, New York City passed new legislation called Int. 762-B that allows delivery platforms to charge up to 43% of the order total. While the delivery fee is still technically 15%, third-party delivery platforms can charge an additional 3% credit card fee, 20% for “enhanced services” like marketing, and 5% in other fees.
The bill went into effect on May 31, and delivery platforms had until June 30 to notify their current New York City restaurant and bar clients of the new service plans and fee structures. Delivery platforms are also required to offer a basic plan for restaurants with a maximum 23% in fees per order, including the delivery, credit card processing, and transactional fees.
“We’ll be closely monitoring how these changes are implemented to ensure they protect restaurants from unfair business practices, and we’ll be ready to respond if not,” the New York City Hospitality Alliance said in a June statement. “This is also an opportunity to reset our relationship with delivery platforms—to create a marketplace where we can collaborate and both succeed.”
On the other end of the spectrum, Seattle has one of the tightest regulatory restrictions on the restaurant delivery industry, including a 15% delivery fee cap, driver protections and pay transparency, and fee transparency requirements for both consumers and restaurant clients.
…
As a result of these regulatory crackdowns, DoorDash said Seattle’s fees are twice that of other similarly sized markets, and the highest in the country. The company also claims Seattle’s delivery pay laws have resulted in slower delivery times and lower monthly revenues for local restaurants.
Our Take:
It will be an interesting few years in the restaurant delivery app world. Cities across the U.S. are going to continue to challenge the fee system that most restaurant apps have put in place.
On one hand, some of these apps are flat-out predatory. Their fees are cumbersome to restaurants, and the lack of transparency on those fees has led to consumer complaints and sometimes, often incorrectly, complaints about the restaurants themselves. I recently went to order a meal, and the price was 40 percent higher on the app. It was cheaper to go to the restaurant, which I didn’t do; I ended up not ordering delivery at all and just cooked at home.
As the article points out, these fees hurt both the restaurant and the consumer. But what would a world without some sort of delivery app regulation look like? I can guarantee you it wouldn’t look much different — prices would still be high, and someone along the line would still be getting screwed. Maybe the restaurant, maybe the driver, maybe the consumer — maybe all of them. One thing I can say for sure is that without regulation, the only ones who wouldn’t feel the pinch are the delivery apps.
Coffee Tariffs
The Headline: “Trump’s tariffs on Brazil could make your coffee even more expensive”
The Source: CNBC
What You Need to Know:
President Donald Trump’s proposed 50% tariff on Brazilian imports is bad news for coffee drinkers.
Brazil, the largest U.S. supplier of green coffee beans, accounts for about a third of the country’s total supply, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Coffee beans need to grow in a warm, tropical climate, making Hawaii and Puerto Rico the only suitable places in the United States to farm the crop. But, as the world’s top consumer of coffee, the U.S. requires a massive supply to stay caffeinated. Mintel estimates that the U.S. coffee market reached $19.75 billion last year.
…
To be sure, there’s still time for Brazil to strike a deal with the White House before the tariffs go into effect on Aug. 1. Plus, food and beverage makers are hoping that the Trump administration will grant exemptions for key commodities. U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in an interview in late June that the White House is considering exemptions for produce that can’t be grown in the U.S. — including coffee.
But if that doesn’t happen, coffee companies like Folgers owner J.M. Smucker, Keurig Dr Pepper, Starbucks and Dutch Bros will face much higher costs for the commodity. Giuseppe Lavazza, chair of Italian roaster Lavazza, said on Bloomberg TV on Thursday morning that the latest tariff could mean “a lot of inflation” for the coffee industry.
Our Take:
Fingers crossed this turns out to be a TACO situation. Outside of Hawaii and a few small plantings in California, coffee is not a staple crop in the United States. Brazil supplies 35 percent of the country’s coffee imports, so a 50 percent tariff would certainly put some pressure on the sector and anyone who relies on Brazilian beans.
As we've seen with other tariff-threatened goods, suppliers who can will likely stock up before the tariffs hit (if they even do), keeping prices at their current levels. However, there are plenty of other challenges facing the coffee industry that could drive prices even higher — frosts, climate change, and supply chain issues. Earlier this year, coffee prices hit some of their highest levels ever, with a peak in February. Hopefully, these tariffs won’t go into effect, and we won't see prices jump back to those levels.
Legal Thoughts on “The Bear”
The Headline: “How to Avoid the Biggest Business Red Flags on ‘The Bear,’ According to a Restaurant Lawyer”
The Source: Food & Wine
What You Need to Know:
Key Points
- Get a lawyer involved before you raise money or sign any operating agreement.
- Treat your partnership contract like a prenup: spell out roles, money, and exit paths.
- Never work months without pay unless you’ve secured clear ownership terms and legal protections.
- Investors should fund, not control. Watch for one-sided deals that let financiers shut you down.
- Any contract review must come from an attorney with no conflicts of interest, or risks shift back to you.
Our Take:
There’s a lot to digest here, so let’s address each takeaway individually.
Get a lawyer involved before you raise money or sign any operating agreement.
I can’t tell you how many people try to start raising money before they even have an operating agreement. You would think it’s common sense, but unfortunately, it’s not. I’ve also seen plenty of people use online legal entities to create their operating agreements. Even if you do that, you still need a lawyer — it’s too important a document to leave up to LegalZoom.
Treat your partnership contract like a prenup: spell out roles, money, and exit paths.
No one wants to talk about what happens if a business doesn’t work out. Everyone talks about how much money they’re going to make, so who wants to put bad vibes out in the world and even suggest that the business could fail and that the friendship could splinter? But much like that uncomfortable prenup conversation, it needs to happen. Some businesses just don’t work; even the best operators have had failures. Many friendships have been destroyed when those friendships were mixed with business.
As per spelling out roles, there is an entire separate article there.
Never work months without pay unless you’ve secured clear ownership terms and legal protections.
I have a differing opinion here. I don’t think any operator should ever work without pay. Somewhere in the operating agreement there should be a “Management Fee.” When I was opening my restaurant in 2019, a potential investor raised a concern: I wasn’t paying myself enough as an operator. His concern, which others also voiced, was that when business owners don’t earmark enough income for themselves, they can become overly stressed and start making poor or desperate business decisions.
Investors should fund, not control. Watch for one-sided deals that let financiers shut you down.
100 percent — you can usually spot these types of investors before you even sign. They tend to make themselves known, often without realizing it. Unless this investor is a seasoned operator or potentially assisting as an operating partner, they’re a no-go — for many reasons, the biggest being the headache they’ll cause over the business's lifespan. Ideally you walk away from these types of investors, but in the case that is not an option, it’s even more reason to make sure a lawyer looks at your agreement to ensure minimal exposure or risks from an activist investor.
Any contract review must come from an attorney with no conflicts of interest, or the risks shift back to you.
If someone comes to you with a contract that their attorney put together and insists that their lawyer will walk you through it without outside counsel, it’s a conflict. Get someone else to look at it.
Letting Diners Dictate Their Experience
The Headline: “Olive & Finch lets diners dictate how they want to experience the brand”
The Source: Restaurant Business Online
What You Need to Know:
So Nguyen decided to create the experience she was looking for. And, in 2013, she opened Olive & Finch, a breakfast, lunch and dinner all-day concept, open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., with a scratch kitchen and counter-service ordering—what now might be described as premium fast-casual.
And everything on the menu is priced at $20 or less.
Nguyen clearly struck a chord.
“We opened in 2013 to a line out the door,” she said. “Now we have multiple locations and there’s still a line out the door. It’s interesting the way we created something because we were passionate about it, but people really wanted something different that was accessible and affordable.”
Now Olive & Finch has four locations, with a fifth scheduled to open this year, and No. 6 planned for 2026.
…
It’s a concept that translates well to various settings, including hotels, airports and hospitals, she said. This year, for example, Olive & Finch opened in Denver’s lovely Union Station downtown, and the concept opened in late May at the Denver Performing Arts Complex.
“Our secret sauce is that when you come in, you don’t feel like you’re walking into a quick-service restaurant. You feel like you’re in a community space,” said Nguyen. “It’s warm. There are social cues, so you know to order at the counter, but we don’t dictate the experience for the typical guest.”
As a result, Olive & Finch has become a setting where you might see someone stopping in for a quick coffee and signature “crognet” (a croissant/beignet hybrid), as well as families gathered for a meal, ladies lunching, or men grabbing an after-work drink. (The Performing Arts location has a full bar that guests can “pony up to,” she said.)
Our Take:
I love this perspective – and it's a growing sentiment we're seeing. Guests want the convenience of a quick-service restaurant, the quality of a sit-down restaurant, and, at times, the community of a bar. From a business standpoint, driving traffic based on different consumer needs and impulses is a fantastic formula.
It's not as simple as it sounds, though. It requires thoughtful design, great food and drinks, and – though I hate to say it – it needs to have a vibe. Not a forced, overly trendy vibe, but a vibe. Taking that into account, this mentality or model can expand the breadth of the consumer base and the frequency of their visits, driving overall sales up.