San Francisco customers may be affected only if they meet every reported condition: California residency, a purchase at one of four specified Domino’s locations, a 6% San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance (HSCO) charge on that purchase, and a purchase date from December 4, 2023, through August 12, 2026. A published report says eligible customers may receive either a voucher or a cash payment. However, the available evidence does not verify the claim deadline, an official claim website, or the court-approved notice. Do not assume a Domino’s order qualifies based on the brand or city alone.
The reported settlement is limited to four franchise locations
The report concerns Asi Foods Inc. and related entities that operate four Domino’s Pizza locations in San Francisco. It does not describe a nationwide Domino’s settlement, and it does not establish that purchases from other Domino’s stores are included.
The locations listed in the report are:
- 3116 Noriega St., San Francisco, CA 94116
- 320 Bayshore Blvd., San Francisco, CA 94142
- 5200 Geary Blvd., San Francisco, CA 94118
- 728 Geary St., San Francisco, CA 94109
That store list is the key identifier available in the evidence. A customer who ordered from another San Francisco Domino’s location, ordered elsewhere in California, or cannot establish that the order carried the reported 6% HSCO charge cannot be confirmed as eligible from the material supplied here.
How the reported eligibility test works
Claim Depot reported four cumulative requirements. First, the person must be a California resident. Second, the purchase must have been made at one of the four addresses above. Third, the order must have included a 6% charge connected to the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance. Fourth, the purchase must fall within the reported class period of December 4, 2023, to August 12, 2026.
The distinction between a health-care-related fee and a tax is central to the reported allegations. According to the report, the lawsuit alleged that the franchise locations charged the 6% HSCO fee while representing it as a tax, which plaintiffs said was misleading and violated California law. Those are allegations described by a settlement report, not findings of liability in the evidence provided. A settlement generally resolves disputed claims; it does not by itself prove the allegations.
For readers trying to identify an eligible order, the practical records would be an itemized receipt, order confirmation, account history or other purchase documentation showing the store, date and charge. The report says a settlement administrator would calculate a cash payment using purchase records or proofs of purchase. It does not say what proof will be required in every situation, whether records are available for all customers, or whether customers will receive direct notice.
Voucher versus cash: the reported trade-off
The reported terms create two different forms of recovery. Claim Depot says class members would automatically receive a voucher worth 75% of the total qualifying HSCO fees paid during the class period. The voucher reportedly may be used only at the four San Francisco stores operated by the defendants.
A customer who prefers cash reportedly must submit a claim form. The reported cash amount is 50% of total qualifying HSCO fees. Put simply, the stated voucher value is larger than the stated cash value for the same documented fees, but it is usable only on a future purchase at the specified stores.
That difference matters because a voucher is not the same as cash. Someone who expects to order again from one of the four locations may value the voucher more highly. Someone who has moved, does not plan to use those stores, or wants compensation without making another purchase may prefer cash if the official notice confirms that option. The available evidence does not state whether the voucher has an expiration date, whether it has a minimum-order requirement, whether it can be combined with other promotions, or whether it can be transferred. Those terms could materially change the decision.
The reported structure also explains the parties’ incentives. A 75% voucher potentially keeps some settlement value within the participating franchise locations through a later transaction, while a 50% cash payment provides a lower nominal amount but no requirement to return as a customer. This is an economic comparison based on the reported terms, not an assertion about any individual customer’s best choice.
The deadline and official filing route are not verified
The supplied report says customers seeking cash can file online or mail a printed claim form to “Miller v Asi Foods Inc., c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 23698, Jacksonville, FL 32241-3698.” But the excerpt does not provide a deadline, a claim-form URL, a case number, a court, a settlement website, or a final-approval date.
Those omissions are consequential. A deadline determines whether a cash-election right can still be used. An official notice would also establish whether a customer must submit documentation, whether a voucher is truly automatic, and whether any other choices or exclusions apply. Until those materials are available, the reported mailing address should not be treated as complete instructions for submitting a claim.
The next verifiable step is to locate the official settlement notice, court docket entry or settlement-administrator page for Miller v. Asi Foods Inc. before sending personal information or relying on a payment estimate. That document should state the controlling deadline and the exact procedure. The current evidence supports the reported store, fee and date filters, but it cannot confirm that a particular reader will receive money or a voucher.
Do not confuse this matter with other Domino’s litigation
Other 2026 reports involving Domino’s operators concern different defendants, locations and claims. One Washington matter reported by Class Action U involves job-posting pay-transparency allegations against Carpe Diem Pizza Inc. and King Beast Pizza. Bloomberg Law separately reported a California wage-and-hour settlement involving delivery drivers and warehouse workers. Neither report corroborates the San Francisco HSCO-fee terms or establishes eligibility in this consumer matter.
For this settlement, the relevant question is narrow: whether a California resident paid the specified 6% fee at one of four named San Francisco stores during the reported period. The missing official notice is the document that would turn that reported framework into a usable claim deadline and filing process.
The usable consumer decision is not whether someone has ever ordered Domino’s in San Francisco. It is whether the order can be tied to a specific address, period and reported 6% HSCO charge. The published terms also present a real trade-off: a larger voucher limited to the four participating stores or a lower reported cash amount that requires a claim. But the most important operational detail—the filing deadline—is absent from the available evidence. That makes this a developing settlement item rather than a confirmed payment opportunity. An official settlement notice is needed before customers can reliably choose a remedy or submit personal information.
Sources and methodology
- Domino’s San Francisco HSCO Fee Class Action Settlement - https://www.claimdepot.com/settlements/asi-foods-settlement
- Domino's Pizza Operators Agree to $1 Million Settlement ... - https://classactionu.org/our-news/dominos-pizza-operators-agree-to-1-million-settlement-over-washington-job-pay-transparency
- Case: Wage & Hour/California Class Actions (C.D. Cal.) - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/case-wage-hour-california-class-actions-c-d-cal-14
- Domino's Pizza, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - DPZ - https://zlk.com/cases/dominos-pizza-inc-class-action-lawsuit-dpz
