On August 26, prominent self-media writer Liu Shenglei claimed he was asked by staff to vacate his seat for a customer with a pet at a Shanghai Starbucks location, being told his spot was in a designated "pet zone."

The Shanghai Dog Management Regulations explicitly prohibit bringing dogs into dining establishments. Netizens pointed out that Liu was seated in a semi-open glass room near the entrance, which is considered a "pet-friendly area." On August 27, the store responded to media inquiries, stating, "We are making corrections; pets are now only allowed outdoors, and the glass room is considered inside the store."

"The contradiction lies in the store turning 'pet-friendly' into 'pet-first,'" Liu said. He cannot understand why a customer who arrived first should be forced to give up their seat for someone with a pet. He has yet to receive an official explanation from Starbucks.

What exactly happened that day? Where should the boundary of "pet-friendly" be drawn? In an interview, Liu recounted the incident in detail.

When asked if he was seated in the glass room, inside or outside the store, Liu responded, "I was definitely inside the store; I walked through the door. The store might want to emphasize the partition, but that area is connected to the ordering and seating areas, and the so-called inner door was open. The fact that they later said they would move the pet space outside confirms that area was originally inside the store."

Regarding his choice of seat, Liu explained, "I didn't overthink it; I just sat down when I arrived. I came around 2 PM, ordered a coffee, and sat there writing for about an hour. Across from me, near the counter, sat a customer with a dog, and there were pets in other corners of the store too."

On the interaction with staff, Liu described, "A male employee with glasses called out from behind the counter, 'You can't sit here; you need to move.' His tone was unquestionable and somewhat irritated. Finally, he said loudly, 'Sorry, I didn't notice when you sat down, I forgot to remind you this is the pet zone.' As I was leaving, he said I could sit inside. That's probably what they later called 'coordinating a seat.' The customer with the pet was silently waiting for me to move, not impatient. My impression was that the staff felt I should give up my seat. I thought to myself, he could sit inside; there were already cats and dogs in there and empty seats too."

Asked about the signage on the glass door, Liu noted, "It said 'pet-friendly' on the glass, but it didn't clearly mark it as a 'pet zone,' nor did it specify which seats people could or couldn't use. I took photos at the time. First, local regulations and the business district clearly prohibit pets in dining areas. Whether the store calls it a pet zone or emphasizes a partition, it doesn't change the fact that it's indoors. Second, even if the store wants to use this informal approach, it must clearly state the rules and not impose an obligation on customers to give up seats. Finally, the store's response about rectification is inconsistent—first saying there's a pet zone, then calling it a pet-friendly area. Is it a dining area or not? I find this response insincere."

On direct communication with Starbucks, Liu said, "Around 6 or 7 PM that evening, about ten minutes after I published my post, a friend reached out saying Starbucks wanted to 'collaborate' with me, and sent over a photo of their collaboration with another author. I haven't received an official explanation yet. Today, a middleman also approached me about this, but I've been busy promoting my new book and haven't dealt with it."

Discussing the trend of pet-friendly dining, Liu commented, "I can only speak for myself. I have pets, and some people online criticize me for pretending to like cats and dogs. I understand pet owners need space and hope pets can have more room. Businesses using this for differentiation is a choice, but it shouldn't infringe on the rights of non-pet owners for commercial gimmicks. Many things come down to going too far; otherwise, good intentions turn into bad outcomes. Even I, a pet owner, am being pushed to the other side, which shows execution has truly overstepped."

On resolving the conflict between regulations and practice, Liu argued, "First, local regulations are based on practical considerations. Some people are allergic to cats and dogs, and severe cases can be fatal. There must be trade-offs in rulemaking, and I understand the blanket ban to some extent. Second, in practice, there's always room for flexibility. Both this store and others nearby, as netizens noted, have cats and dogs eating on tables. In the hour I was there, the store was full of cats and dogs. Finally, improving laws and regulations takes time. But loving pets shouldn't go too far. Many stores have turned 'pet-friendly' into 'pet-first,' imposing an obligation on customers to give up seats for pets. I find this unfair and unreasonable. Pet-friendly means allowing and tolerating pets to be with people, not driving people away so only pets remain. There's no exclusive space for people, but there is for dogs. Even customers with dogs can sit anywhere, while regular customers can't. This approach artificially creates conflict and does nothing to promote care and tolerance for pets; it only increases division and misunderstanding, making more people resentful and resistant to pets."