The result of this nitpicking might end up being a bad middle ground in terms of the scope and efficacy of such a proposed regulation. The knee-jerk response m

The result of this nitpicking might end up being a bad middle ground in terms of the scope and efficacy of such a proposed regulation. The knee-jerk response might be to argue against this based on exactly the non-blanket nature of such a policy (i.e. it does not apply to all companies with in-house cafeterias, tech or not, subsidized or not). The more practical option that takes advantage of the same sliver of regulation is for a few high paid workers to simply incorporate their own eatery or buy out a midsized one and serve X tech company directly for a good rate. Business as usual, as it were. This second option may seem malevolent but it doesn't skirt any existing business laws, and once they fine tune their selling points (menu, proximity to company, delivery, perks, billing, credit, etc) it wouldn't be infeasible for them to gain the full on contract with those edges over the existing mom+pop competition. In a grand backfire someone then gets into a multi-branch cafeteria/catering business that just happens to have big tech as their only clients, etc.