热点资讯
正规股票配资平台 顾客自带酒水被收取100元“开瓶费”，餐厅回应
新闻原文：正规股票配资平台
不少消费者外出就餐时，都会看到店里写着“谢绝自带酒水”的提示，有些商家会明确告知顾客自带酒水要收取一定费用，俗称“开瓶费”。如果你遇到这种情况会怎么做呢？
5月15日，封面新闻求助报料平台收到报料，有顾客在成都锦江区三色路一家餐厅就餐时，被收取100元“开瓶费”，商家回应称事前已经与顾客约定好了，收的是额外的餐具清洁费。对此律师表示，不论是“开瓶费”还是“清洁费”都属于霸王条款，即使餐厅提前告知了消费者也是不合理、不合法的，消费者不受其约束。
顾客投诉
被收100元“开瓶费” 拒绝支付称将起诉
5月15日晚，该网友发布视频显示，他在成都三色路一家餐厅就餐时，因100元“开瓶费”与工作人员起了争执。
视频中餐厅工作人员解释，该网友就餐时自己带了酒而没有消费店里的酒水，因此要收取100元“服务费”，还表示在顾客就餐前已经告知，“如果你们不愿意当时就可以不开这个酒，或者不在这里用餐。”
该网友追问：“什么是服务费？开瓶费吗？你们没有给我们开！”工作人员并没有直接回应“开瓶费”的说法，只称是“你们在店里就餐、喝酒服务的费用”。
对此，该网友坚持酒是自己带的，也没有享受到任何服务，拒绝支付这笔费用，并在视频里表示要打官司。
记者私信该视频发布者，希望进一步了解事情经过，截至发稿时仍未收到回复。
视频截图
商家回应
就餐前明确告知 收的是额外餐具清洁费
事情真的如此吗？5月17日上午，记者拨打了涉事餐厅的电话，一名工作人员表示视频内容属实，不过事情发生在4月中旬，并不是5月15日，“具体几号我忘记了，因为已经很久了，也不记得他们最后给没给钱”。
该工作人员再次强调，店员在顾客就餐前已经明确告知了收费的标准和方式，相关说明在手机扫码点餐主页上也有显示：“我们在他们就餐前已经约定了，但是客人因为喝了高度白酒，临到结账的时候跟我们起了冲突。”
那么，这到底是一笔什么费用呢？该工作人员回应：“这个是对于开瓶的服务，因为他们带了自己的东西，可能会产生额外的餐具清洁费。”
网传该餐厅的收费标准为“红酒、白酒每瓶收取100元”，对此该工作人员予以否认，称100元一瓶的说法是不准确的，顾客带的东西不一样，收费标准也不同。
记者继续追问收费标准是什么，对方以“有电话进来了”为由挂断了电话。
网友评论
有人认为提前告知就没毛病
该网友把争执视频发在网上，显然是质疑“开瓶费”不合理，希望得到舆论支持。然而，在这则视频下面，却呈现出两极化评论，甚至更多网友认为餐厅可以收“开瓶费”。
大部分网友支持餐厅，评论“自带酒水就该收费，商家明文告知了就没毛病”，还有网友吐槽“不想给就别去，不是谁发视频谁就有理，感觉是故意找事的”。
另一部分网友则支持视频发布者，评论“‘消法’早就取消了开瓶费”“打工商局电话，他这个是违法的”。
还有极少数网友属于“中间派”，表示自带酒水收点服务费是合理的，但是100元太多了。
律师解释
属于霸王条款，消费者不受其约束
事实上，关于“开瓶费”的讨论已经持续了很多年。许多餐厅需要靠酒水创收，因而会设置谢绝带入酒水、酒水带入需收开瓶费等条款，就是变相逼迫顾客在店里消费酒水。如今，很多商家并不承认自己收的是“开瓶费”，只是模糊地称其为“服务费”。不少消费者就像视频评论区里的网友，被迫接受了这一规则，认为收费合理。
从法律层面上，“开瓶费”合理、合法吗？
对此，河南泽槿律师事务所主任付建解释，我国《消费者保护权益法》第二十六条明确规定，经营者不得以格式条款、通知、声明、店堂告示等方式，作出排除或者限制消费者权利、减轻或者免除经营者责任、加重消费者责任等对消费者不公平、不合理的规定，不得利用格式条款并借助技术手段强制交易。格式条款、通知、声明、店堂告示等含有前款所列内容的，其内容无效。
“所谓‘开瓶费’就是在变相消除消费者权利，是一种霸王条款，不合法，应属无效。”他说，“即使餐厅工作人员提前告知，该条款仍然属于无效内容，因为侵犯了消费者的选择权和公平交易权，是不合理、不合法的，消费者不受其约束。”
封面新闻记者 曹菲
责任编辑：廖泽宇 UN962
新闻译文：
Many consumers will see a notice in the store saying "Do not bring your own drinks" when dining out. Some businesses will clearly inform customers that bringing your own drinks will incur a certain fee, commonly known as the "bottle opening fee". What would you do if you encountered this situation?
On May 15th, the Cover News Help Reporting Platform received a report stating that a customer was charged 100 yuan for bottle opening while dining at a restaurant on Sanse Road in Jinjiang District, Chengdu. The merchant responded that they had already agreed with the customer beforehand and charged an additional cleaning fee for the tableware. The lawyer stated that both the "bottle opening fee" and "cleaning fee" belong to the overbearing clause, and even if the restaurant informs consumers in advance, it is unreasonable and illegal, and consumers are not bound by it.
Customer complaints
Refused to pay a "bottle opening fee" of 100 yuan, claiming to sue
On the evening of May 15th, the netizen posted a video showing that he had a dispute with the staff over a 100 yuan "bottle opening fee" while dining at a restaurant on Sanse Road in Chengdu.
The restaurant staff in the video explained that the netizen brought their own wine while dining and did not consume the alcohol in the store, so they were charged a "service fee" of 100 yuan. They also stated that they had informed the customer before dining, "If you are not willing, you can skip this wine or dine here."
The netizen asked, "What is the service fee? Is the bottle opening fee? You didn't open it for us!" The staff did not directly respond to the statement of "bottle opening fee", only stating that it is "the cost of your dining and drinking services in the store.".
In this regard, the netizen insisted that the wine was brought by themselves and did not enjoy any service, refused to pay this fee, and stated in the video that they wanted to file a lawsuit.
The reporter sent a private message to the video publisher, hoping to further understand the situation. As of the time of publication, no response has been received.
Video screenshot
Merchant response
Before dining, it is clearly stated that the additional tableware cleaning fee will be charged
Is it really like this? On the morning of May 17th, the reporter called the restaurant involved, and a staff member said that the video content was true, but the incident occurred in mid April, not May 15th. "I forgot the specific date because it has been a long time, and I don't remember whether they paid in the end.".
The staff member emphasized again that the clerk had clearly informed the customer of the charging standard and method before the meal, and the relevant instructions also showed on the mobile phone scanning and ordering home page: "We had made an agreement before their meal, but the customer had a conflict with us when it came to the checkout because of the high level of Baijiu."
So, what exactly is this cost? The staff member responded, "This is for bottle opening services, as they bring their own things and may incur additional tableware cleaning fees."
According to the internet, the charging standard of the restaurant is "100 yuan for each bottle of red wine and Baijiu", which the staff denied, saying that the statement of 100 yuan for each bottle is inaccurate, and the charging standard is also different due to the different items brought by customers.
武则天出生在一个家境殷实的家庭中，家中是做木材生意的，还和皇室有着几分交情，李渊曾多次去过武则天家。武则天出生后，哭了七天七夜都没有听，这时候他父亲即为恼火，于是请来一位老道，老道看了眼前的情况先是一惊，然后慢慢的伏在武则天的耳旁说了一句；“文臣武将已归位，请君莫担心。”这句话说完武则天立马就不哭了。
不过对武则天本人来说，她认为最能够代表自己一生命运的，显然是她在690年称帝以后，给自己取的名字。甚至于为了给自己取一个称心如意的名字，武则天还生生自己造了一个汉字“曌”，这是一个非常明显的象形字，代表着日月当空的意思，武则天认为自己就像是太阳与月亮一样照耀着大地。
The reporter continued to inquire about the charging standards, but the other party hung up the phone citing "there was a call coming in".
Netizen comments
Some people believe that informing in advance is not a problem
The netizen posted a video of the dispute online, obviously questioning the reasonableness of the "bottle opening fee" and hoping to receive public support. However, below this video, there are polarized comments, and even more netizens believe that restaurants can charge a "bottle opening fee".
Most of the netizens supported the restaurant, commenting that "you should charge for bringing your own drinks, and the merchant told you in writing that there was nothing wrong with it", and the netizen roast that "don't go if you don't want to, it's not reasonable for anyone to send a video, and it feels like they are deliberately looking for trouble".
Another group of netizens support video publishers, commenting that "the Consumer Protection Law has long cancelled the bottle opening fee" and "calling the Industry and Commerce Bureau is illegal.".
A very small number of netizens belong to the "middle faction", stating that it is reasonable to charge a service fee for bringing their own drinks, but 100 yuan is too much.
Lawyer's explanation
Belonging to the overbearing clause, consumers are not bound by it
In fact, the discussion about "bottle opening fees" has been ongoing for many years. Many restaurants rely on alcohol to generate revenue, so they may set up clauses such as refusal to bring in alcohol and a bottle opening fee for bringing in alcohol, which indirectly forces customers to consume alcohol in the store. Nowadays, many businesses do not acknowledge that they are charging a "bottle opening fee", but vaguely refer to it as a "service fee". Many consumers, like netizens in the video comment section, are forced to accept this rule and believe that the fees are reasonable.
From a legal perspective, is the "bottle opening fee" reasonable and legal?
Regarding this, Fu Jian, the director of Henan Zejin Law Firm, explained that Article 26 of China's Consumer Protection Rights and Interests Law clearly stipulates that operators shall not make unfair and unreasonable provisions to consumers, such as excluding or restricting consumer rights, reducing or exempting operator responsibilities, and increasing consumer responsibilities, through standard clauses, notices正规股票配资平台 , statements, and store notices. They shall not use standard clauses and technical means to force transactions. If the format terms, notices, statements, store notices, etc. contain the contents listed in the preceding paragraph, their contents shall be invalid.
"The so-called 'bottle opening fee' is a disguised elimination of consumer rights, which is a domineering clause that is illegal and should be considered invalid." He said, "Even if restaurant staff inform in advance, this clause is still invalid because it infringes on consumers' right to choose and fair trade, which is unreasonable and illegal, and consumers are not bound by it."
Cover News Reporter Cao Fei
Responsible editor: Liao Zeyu UN962
重点词汇 谢绝 decline ; refuse ; deny oneself to ; close one's doors 酒水 beverage 俗称 be commonly called ; vulgo ; proverb 开瓶费 corkage 怎么做 how to do 锦江 Jinjiang ; Jingjiang ; JJS 三色 Tricolor ; three-colour 霸王条款 Overlord clause ; overlord terms ; arbitrary clause 不合理 unreasonable ; irrational 不合法 illegality ; wrongful ; wrongfulness句子成分分析：
If the format terms, notices, statements, store notices, etc. contain the contents listed [in the preceding paragraph],