SC - Fees in General

[Peters, Rise J.]

Lainie wrote:

> Another angle though, is that it may or may not be legal to charge
> someone for A, which they do not wish or cannot participate 
> in (dietary
> restrictions come to mind) as a requirement to participate in B, which
> may be wholly unrelated. (I will admit the gov't does this 
> all the time,
> but they're the gov't.) The only semi-comparable analogue that I can
> think of that is legal is a cover charge or the two-drink minimum at a
> club to go hear a good band. But there you have the option of soft
> drinks if you don't want a scotch and soda...

It's perfectly legal, because attendence is voluntary.  The cases in which
such things are not legal (they are called "illegal tying arrangements") is
where one of the goods or services in question is considered a necessity,
with a monopoly provider. For example, the electric company cannot require
you to buy your light bulbs from them as a condition of buying electric
power.

Rise (because Caitlin doesn't know diddle about utility law)