Is it lawful to offer smaller portions only to children below a certain age, by calling it a &quot;children&#39;s menu&quot;?
<p>Suppose that one is ordering from a restaurant that offers full portions for £11 or half-sized portions on a section of the menu designated as for kids for £6.</p>
<p>But suppose that one is over the designated age threshold, yet only has £7 in their account, or is simply not so hungry and doesn't want to be wasteful or carry home leftovers.</p>
<p>Is it lawful for the restaurant to make a section of their published menu unavailable to one simply because of their age?</p>

<p><strong>Is it lawful to offer smaller portions only to children below a certain age..?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p>
<p>Part 3 of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents" rel="noreferrer">Equality Act 2010</a> covers &quot;Services and Public Functions&quot; and at <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/29?timeline=false" rel="noreferrer">section 29</a>
states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Provision of services, etc.</strong></p>
<p>(1)A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the only definition of &quot;service-provider&quot; in the Act, but the <a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equality-law-hotels-restaurants-caf%C3%A9s-and-pubs" rel="noreferrer">Equality and Human Rights Commission</a> confirms a restaurant falls with the scope of Part 3:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Equality law applies to any business that provides goods, facilities or services to members of the public.</p>
<p>This includes a wide range of different businesses and services. These include:</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<ul>
<li>restaurants</li>
</ul>
<p>[...]</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><strong>However</strong> all that is moot (but posted here for context) as Part 3 of the Act opens with caveats at <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/28?timeline=false" rel="noreferrer">section 28</a> which establishes that:</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>(1)This Part does not apply to the protected characteristic of—</p>
<ul>
<li>(a)age, so far as relating to persons who have <strong>not attained the age of 18</strong>;</li>
</ul>
<p>[...]</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a></p>
<p>Yes it is lawful.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2466/article/4/made" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (Age Exceptions) Order 2012</a> amends <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Part 7 of Schedule 3 Equality Act 2010</a>.</p>
<p>This allows organisations to offer age-related discounts, concessions or benefits. It is intended to ensure that 'special offers' such as cheap haircuts for pensioners or student railcards are lawful.</p>
<p>(Likewise the order makes an amendment to the Act that allows retailers of age-restricted products to continue to challenge customers on the basis of their ages.)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is it lawful to offer smaller portions only to children below a certain age, by calling it a &quot;children's menu&quot;?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your hypothetical that [at least] the sizes of portions are different implies that the goods at issue are not equivalent. That difference largely precludes a finding of unlawful discrimination.</p>
<p>Other scenarios where a restaurant enforces age limits involve additional &quot;perks&quot; that would be abused if enjoyed by an adult. A buffet at a lower price for kids is one example, given an adult's ability and likelihood to consume much more food than what a child would do.</p>
<p>Even if a plaintiff persuaded the court that the restaurant's policy is unlawfully discriminatory, damages would be limited to <em>evidenced</em> injury to feelings. See <a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5d133cf52c94e0558cd6842d" rel="noreferrer"><em>Bower v. Brewdog PLC</em></a>, prs. 44-46. Devising other types of losses for the scenario you outline would prompt another stream of <a href="https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/140060/discussion-on-answer-by-inaki-viggers-is-it-lawful-to-offer-smaller-portions-onl">convoluted speculations</a>. An adult's allegation that he felt humiliated for having to identify himself as child for the sake of getting a discount would sound more bizarre than the alleged humiliation in <em>Bower</em> about identifying himself as female in order to get a drink one pound cheaper.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/ontario" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;ontario&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;ontario&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="ontario-container">ontario</a></p>
<p>Ontario's <a href="https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19#BK17" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Human Rights Code</em></a> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, <em><strong>age</strong></em>, marital status, family status or disability</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“age” means an age that is 18 years or more</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In <em>Garisto v. Toronto Transit Commission</em>, 2016 HRTO 230, the applicant alleged that the Transit Commission's policy of allowing children 12 and under to travel for free discriminated against him on the basis of age, since he had to pay full fare. The tribunal said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Section 10(1) of the <em>Code</em> states: “age” means an age that is 18 years or more.” On the basis of this definition, the applicant’s allegation about <em>preferential treatment for children is not a matter the Tribunal can consider</em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/british-columbia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;british-columbia&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;british-columbia&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="british-columbia-container">british-columbia</a></p>
<p>British Columbia's <a href="https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Human Rights Code</a> has a similar prohibition on discrimination in services because of age, but in that Code,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;age&quot; means an age of 19 years or more</p>
</blockquote>

united-kingdom england-and-wales discrimination any-jurisdiction unfair-terms