SB 68 Legal Nuances: Strict Liability, Third-Party Menus, and Franchise Coverage

Strict Liability Exists Independently of SB 68

The most important legal point to understand about SB 68 is that it sits on top of an existing legal regime. Regardless of whether SB 68 applies to your restaurant, food allergy is a strict liability issue under common law. The moment a guest notifies anyone at your establishment of a food allergy — a server, the host, a cashier — and any mistake happens thereafter, you bear strict liability for the consequences.

SB 68 adds a statutory layer: post-July 2026, a covered operator without compliant allergen disclosure is also in violation of the Retail Food Code, which means negligence per se applies in any subsequent civil claim.

"All Digital Menus": DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Third-Party Delivery

The current consensus view from law firms advising restaurant groups is that SB 68's requirement for disclosure on "all digital menus" means every surface where a consumer can see a menu and place an order. That includes the restaurant's own website and app, first-party online ordering platforms, and third-party delivery platforms: DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub, and any other app where the restaurant's menu is accessible.

Cross-Contact Is Not Specifically Covered — But Disclose Anyway

SB 68 applies to allergens present in menu item ingredients. Cross-contact — the risk that a menu item may have come into contact with an allergen through shared equipment or preparation surfaces — is not specifically referenced in the statute. However, Foodini strongly recommends including a cross-contact disclaimer on every allergen menu.

Both Franchisors and Franchisees Are Covered

SB 68 explicitly applies to both franchisors and their franchisees doing business in California. The 20-location threshold is counted at the brand level, not the franchisee level. A franchisee operating a single California location under a brand with 22 national locations is covered by SB 68.

Civil Litigation: The Real SB 68 Enforcement Risk

Dylan's assessment is that the larger practical risk for most operators is civil litigation — from guests who relied on missing or incorrect allergen information, and from the plaintiff infrastructure that has already emerged around ADA digital accessibility non-compliance.