Both utility bills and restaurant bills are demands to satisfy a debt after the service have been rendered. And in cases of rental properties, it’s refusal to pay even before the service (the legal right to reside in the property) is rendered, since most leases require paying on the first of the month. Why shouldn’t they all just be considered either all civil or all criminal. I don’t understand the inconsistency in legislation.
Country: United States of America
Not a lawyer, but public utilities operate under civil oversight, usually a state or.county board of public utilities. The matters are civil in party because public utilities are usually necessities-- heat during cold snaps, water and power during heat waves, etc. The utilities are obligated to provide the product, and receive special benefits for access to market with provisos that they can’t just shut people off without due process. The “elderly lady on a pension” scenario. The public utilities can generally also write off losses.
Restaurants are entirely a luxury venture, where walking out of a bill amounts to theft of goods and services. You don’t need to eat out to survive.
It’s not consistent, but it is how the laws work.