New SEAT Act Requires Written Contracts for All Third-Party Restaurant Reservations, Gives FTC Enforcement Power

The Supporting Equal Access to Tables Act of 2025, or the SEAT Act, aims to shift control over online restaurant reservations back to the restaurants themselves. Essentially, this bill says that if you run a website or app that lists reservations for a restaurant (and you aren’t the restaurant owner), you must have a written contract directly with that restaurant to list the table. No contract, no listing. This applies to every kind of food service establishment, from your favorite downtown bistro to the food truck outside the stadium (SEC. 2).

Putting Restaurants Back in the Driver’s Seat

For years, many restaurants have dealt with third-party sites listing their tables without permission, sometimes at inflated prices or with inaccurate availability. This bill is the legislative equivalent of giving the restaurant owner the keys back. By requiring a written agreement, the SEAT Act ensures that restaurants have control over who is selling their tables and how their brand is being represented online. This is a big win for control and accuracy, meaning fewer instances where you show up for a reservation only to find the restaurant never heard of you.

Bye-Bye, Indemnity Clauses

One of the most significant protections for restaurant owners lies in the contract requirements. The bill explicitly voids any clause in the contract that forces the restaurant to indemnify, or cover the costs, for damages caused by the reservation service’s own screw-ups. Think of it this way: if the reservation app crashes and double-books a table, causing the restaurant to lose business, the restaurant can’t be forced to pay the app’s legal fees or damages. The liability stays where the mistake was made, which is a massive relief for small businesses often bullied into accepting unfavorable terms (SEC. 2).

The FTC Is Watching

Who makes sure everyone plays fair? The Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Violating this new contract requirement is treated as an unfair or deceptive business practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. This means the FTC can investigate and levy penalties against reservation services that try to list tables without the required agreement. Third-party services have 180 days after the Act becomes law to get their contracts in order before the FTC starts enforcement (SEC. 2).

The Potential Catch for Consumers and Competitors

While the bill is great for restaurants, it could reshape the reservation market in ways that might not favor consumers or smaller tech companies. By mandating a direct contract, the SEAT Act creates a high barrier to entry. Large, established platforms like OpenTable or Resy, which already have vast networks and sales teams, are likely to quickly secure these contracts. However, smaller aggregators, independent review sites that link to reservations, or newer startups might struggle to get written agreements with thousands of individual restaurants.

This could lead to market consolidation, where only a few major players control the online reservation space. For you, the consumer, this might mean less choice in where you book, potentially fewer comparison tools, and maybe less innovation in the reservation process. It’s a classic trade-off: more control and accuracy for the restaurant versus potentially less competition and fewer booking options for the diner.