"Ordered 50 Servings of Premium Beef Tongue and Got Scolded" Post
No Legal Issues at All-You-Can-Eat Restaurant
"Customer Freedom" vs "Must Keep Manners" Controversy
"I've never seen a customer place an order like this before and got scolded, so if this is the case, shouldn't they just stop the all-you-can-eat service?"
Recently in Japan, a controversy has erupted over how much one should order at all-you-can-eat yakiniku (Japanese BBQ) restaurants. A customer who kept ordering only the most expensive menu items at a yakiniku all-you-can-eat restaurant posted a complaint on social media saying they were scolded by the manager. This sparked a debate between those who said "It's an all-you-can-eat place, so it's fine" and those who argued "No matter how much it’s all-you-can-eat, there should be limits." As the controversy intensified, on the 20th, the Japanese legal media outlet Bengoshi JP News stepped in with an analysis article including a lawyer’s legal interpretation, acting as a mediator for the dispute.
The post by X that sparked the controversy over the "infinite refill customer complaint." It reads, "I only ordered premium beef tongue at the yakiniku infinite refill restaurant, and the manager got angry. It's only 50 servings, so if this is how it's going to be, just stop the infinite refill." (Photo by X)
The incident began last month on X (formerly Twitter). A person posted a photo as proof, claiming they ordered 50 servings of the most expensive beef tongue at a Tokyo-based yakiniku all-you-can-eat restaurant costing 4,000 yen (about 36,000 KRW) per person. The post said, "The manager scolded me saying they had never seen a customer order like this before. If that’s the case, they should just stop the all-you-can-eat service." Beef tongue is priced higher than other cuts, and because this customer focused solely on ordering the most expensive beef tongue menu, the restaurant eventually ran out of beef tongue.
As soon as the post went up, it quickly turned into a nationwide debate with 3,000 comments and 20,000 shares. Opinions split between "It’s an all-you-can-eat place, so customers can order whatever they want" and "This is a rude customer that the owner never expected." Those defending the customer argued, "The all-you-can-eat restaurant owner sets prices expecting such customers, so it’s not a problem," and "If the manager wanted rules for the all-you-can-eat, they should have set them." On the other hand, critics said, "It seems like they lack the ability to read the atmosphere. Usually, people show some restraint," and "Ultimately, the ones who lose out are other customers who can’t eat because the ingredients ran out due to this person."
Following this, Japanese media outlets began investigating, fueling the controversy further. According to the online media Flash, the restaurant denied having scolded or warned the customer, instead expressing their own grievances. The manager explained, "The customer kept ordering 5 to 10 servings of premium beef tongue at a time," and "Even after the pre-sliced beef tongue ran out, we continued to slice it on the spot to serve." Five minutes before the all-you-can-eat time limit ended, the customer placed a final order for 5 servings of premium beef tongue, but the menu was eventually sold out. The manager then said, "We have no stock left, so we can’t serve more. But if you want, we can serve other menu items immediately," and the customer ordered other dishes and finished their meal without issue. However, the customer interpreted the substitution as the restaurant warning them.
In Japan, there have been several controversies over how much free side dishes like pickled ginger or garlic provided by restaurants should be allowed. When a famous actor was shown on TV taking 10 extra packets of free pickled ginger while packing beef rice bowls, viewers criticized the behavior. Also, at ramen shops, customers who added large amounts of free garlic and took extra servings claiming "I paid, so it’s fine" have been criticized.
Lawyer Yusuke Minamide told Bengoshi JP News, "Technically, all-you-can-eat is not a contract form defined by civil law, but if we interpret it, the restaurant has an obligation to continuously provide the dishes specified by the customer, and the customer pays for that service," adding, "As long as the customer orders, the restaurant must keep providing the dishes accordingly."
However, he emphasized, "Based on social norms, this obligation should only be fulfilled within the limits of the restaurant’s stock." He added, "It’s not possible to say which side is wrong, but if the restaurant refuses service because it inconveniences other customers, it’s best to set rules from the beginning."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
