IBJNews

Steak n Shake facing new suit over mandatory menu pricing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Another Steak n Shake franchise owner is suing the company over its controversial practice that prohibits restaurants in the chain from setting their own menu prices, even after a federal appeals court sided with a franchisee.

St. Louis-based Druco Restaurants Inc., which operates two Steak n Shake locations in Missouri, filed suit against the locally based chain April 3 in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.

Druco is seeking a permanent injunction to bar Steak n Shake from mandating company-wide menu prices and from terminating Druco’s franchise for refusing to comply with the pricing policy.

Druco argues that it has suffered financially because the policy prohibits franchisees from increasing menu prices while, at the same time, they’re forced to pay higher food costs resulting from a Steak n Shake distribution agreement.

Steak n Shake eliminated its own distribution operations in June 2010 and contracted with another company, Sygma, to be the single distributor of products to company-owned and franchised restaurants, significantly increasing food costs, Druco said in the filing.

“By virtue of its mandate that Sygma is the exclusive supplier of all products to franchisees, together with its policy requiring all franchisees to follow set menu pricing on every item on their menu, Steak n Shake effectively controls both the buy and sell prices for every food item sold by franchisees,” Druco argued.

Druco’s federal suit follows a similar complaint brought by fellow franchisee Stuller Inc. in November 2010.

Springfield, Ill.-based Stuller operates five Illinois Steak n Shake restaurants under franchise agreements with predecessors that date back to 1939, making it the oldest Steak n Shake franchise in the country.

A U.S. District Court in Illinois granted Stuller a preliminary injunction, similar to what Druco is seeking, to stop Steak n Shake from forcing menu prices on franchisees.

Steak n Shake appealed. But last August, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Illinois federal court’s ruling in Stuller’s favor.

In its argument, Stuller said that in 2008, after the franchise adopted Steak n Shake’s pricing policy, it lost $538,446 due to the new policy and higher fuel and food costs.

Yet, even after the Illinois court's judgment "that Steak n Shake has no material evidence to support its contention that its franchise agreements give it the right to enforce the policy, Steak n Shake has held steadfast in its ongoing, and system-wide, breach of those agreements by continuing to force its franchisees to abide by the policy,” Druco said in its complaint.

Steak n Shake is operated by San Antonio-based holding company Biglari Holdings Inc. Calls to the company seeking comment on Druco’s lawsuit were not returned.

Druco is represented locally by lawyers of Cohen & Malad LLP.

Besides asking for the injunction, Druco is suing Steak n Shake for breach of contract and fraud.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Again, Maria.... how much are YOU contributing? The man doesn't HAVE to give a red cent! What don't you get about that? And, I know this might actually require some actual "facts", but can you please point me to the parking garage that the city gave to him?

  2. Another internet tuff guy I see. And what would the basis of taking the person to jail? If they were drunk, yea. But if not, there would be no jailable offense. All these gestapo, Nazi, jackboots are running SCARED. When the SHTF in this country who's side are you going to be on? The citzens, or the establishment? Better make up your mind quick because it's not far off. I would rather be trying to make friends than enemies. But no worries my "friend", God will take care of you and your likes in good time. It tells us that in the bible. If you stand, support and help carry out the plans of evil rulers, you will NOT be spared the wrath of God. That simple. All you can do is repent now and ask God to forgive you.

  3. Yes, Ersal, thank you for donating a whole $75,000, while the city gives you a parking garage for free and is going to pay for a multi million dollar stadium for you. I'd be donating money too if I was on welfare.

  4. I live and work in Broad Ripple and agree 100% that the traffic is not a significant problem. It can be slow at some times, but hey...this is an urban area. As for the development itself...HOORAY. Office and retail development brings people during the day, something that our community needs much more of. Thank goodness people are finally waking up to take advantage of the serene White River views. The BRVA land us committee endorsed the project because they know how these kind of projects help offset the cries of "too many bars". Pray that this development, and the proposed major investment by Browning, move forward. And remember Good Earth, these will mean hundreds of daytime people - potential shoppers for your store.

  5. Under current, previous existing law, this new law would be unconstitutional. Not that supposedly having to have a driver's license to drive isn't in the first place.

ADVERTISEMENT