According to media reports, the first case of catering service contract dispute in Sichuan Province, which was prosecuted for charging bottle opening fee and private room fee, was recently opened. The court found that the agreement on the corkage fee in the catering service contract formed between the plaintiff and the defendant was invalid, and the defendant should refund the corkage fee to the plaintiff, 31 yuan. In addition, the court also ruled that the defendant should refund the plaintiff's private room fee, 51 yuan, on the grounds that the defendant violated the plaintiff's right to know when charging the plaintiff's private room fee.

The verdict of the case has attracted rave reviews from consumers, and comments such as "Overlord Treaty is really unfair" and "Praise the new consumer law" are endless. Some commentators believe that from the appeal to the closing of the case, the law is fair and strict, which enhances the confidence of consumers in safeguarding rights. Under the promulgation and implementation of the new consumer law, consumers' rights protection road is smoother and wider.

as for the verdict of the case, I think its ornamental significance is greater than the demonstration significance. It may not be an exaggeration to use "winning the lawsuit and losing everything" to describe a lawsuit for tens of dollars in bottle opening fees and private room fees. I quite agree with Wang Jianping, a professor at Sichuan University Law School, that bottle opening fee and private room fee cannot be generalized. The basic reason for charging corkage fee should be that the catering industry earns huge profits from drinks, which should be solved by relevant departments through consultation. However, the private room fee is different. The catering industry has provided better service for private rooms, and the operating cost has risen. Whether the private room fee should be collected depends on whether it is unilaterally imposed or voluntarily collected by both parties through consultation.

the hotel expressly stated that "bringing drinks with you is strictly prohibited" and "minimum consumption in private rooms" is precisely to declare its service value to consumers. If consumers can't accept it, they can choose to vote with their feet, and there is no need to bother the judiciary. It is precisely because the law opposes merchants to "sell" a service to consumers, and the law also opposes consumers to buy a service from merchants. As long as the hotel respects consumers' right to know and their right to self-choice, it should not be considered illegal to charge appropriate bottle opening fees and private room fees in catering services, and the judiciary should not excessively intervene in this service contract freely chosen by both parties. It is only fair for the market to decide whether to charge corkage fees and private room fees.