If this were brought to court, I suspect that the MSC would prevail:
* As can be seen from the opinions of the attorneys, this is not clear-cut.
* "Past Practice" is a huge part of the law and, from what I can tell, MSC's very typically do not reimburse meals for which the shopper did not directly pay. (The scenarios where a spouse pays would be different.)
* Some restaurant shops are offered with reimbursements for the meal purchased. Others offer a higher flat fee and expect the shopper to cover all expenses incurred. In court, the MSC would show both practices as normal an argue that the reimbursement is separate from the fee and therefore the shopper not due a fee if the shopper did not incur an expense.
* When a shopper's expenses are covered by a third party, the shopper does not incur any damages if not reimbursed. The shopper has, after all, received all anticipated compensation upon completion of the shop.
Of course, whether or not this is "ethical" is a totally different discussion.
Hard work builds character and homework is good for your soul.