Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2024

The ¥50 skewer and ¥190 beer advertised as tax-inclusive were actually priced before tax

Izakaya chain Shin Jidai listed its ¥50 skewers and ¥190 beer as tax-inclusive — the prices were actually before tax.

Fazz Inc. · 2024-07-29

What happened

Fazz, the operator of the 'Shin Jidai' izakaya chain, advertised its menu prices online as if they were tax-inclusive. On Tabelog it showed a signature skewer (伝串) at ¥50 with the label '(tax included)'; on its official X (Twitter) account it posted images reading 'コンビニよりも安い' (cheaper than a convenience store) alongside '生ビール190円' (draft beer ¥190) and 'ハイボール150円' (highball ¥150).

Those prices were tax-exclusive — the real total was higher. Because the display presented them as tax-inclusive, the deal looked better than it was.

On 29 July 2024 the Consumer Affairs Agency issued a corrective order under Article 7(1) of the Premiums and Representations Act, finding a violation of Article 5(2) for presenting transaction terms as significantly more favourable to consumers than they really were. The order required Fazz to stop the representation, publicise the violation, and put recurrence-prevention measures in place.

Why it happened

  • 'Tax-inclusive' is a specific promise about the final bill, and getting it wrong flatters the price
  • A chain that brags 'cheaper than a convenience store' stakes everything on the headline number being right
  • The mislabel hit the two most-shared items — the famous ¥190 beer and the ¥50 skewer
What it costCorrective order; public notice of the violationembarrassing

The lesson

A 'tax-inclusive' price is a claim about the final figure. When a chain's famous ¥190 beer turns out to be before tax, the headline it is known for is quietly wrong.

Aftermath

The corrective order required Fazz to stop labelling tax-exclusive prices as tax-inclusive on Tabelog and X, notify consumers that the display had violated the Act, and put recurrence-prevention measures in place. The case is a routine 有利誤認 enforcement over a misleading tax label on food and drink prices.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →