Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Mandatory Arbitration Requirement Found Hidden Inside Nutrition Product Package

Vital ProteinsCompanies generally do not like to be sued by consumers particularly in class action lawsuits. So, many of them have incorporated mandatory arbitration clauses into their contracts, or sometimes buried in the terms and conditions section of their websites.

Consumer World reader Dave L. recently wrote to us pointing out a most novel way that one company was attempting to foist a mandatory arbitration requirement onto its customers.

I recently bought my wife some Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides protein powder dietary supplement at BJ’s (Stoneham, Mass.) and noticed the packaging had changed. … After she opened the new outer container, she noticed fine print on a seal that said she was bound by terms and conditions …

*MOUSE PRINT:

Vital Proteins inner lid

There, under the new paper cap, is a disclosure that says:

READ THIS: By opening and using this product, you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions, fully set forth at VitalProteins.com/tc, which includes a mandatory arbitration agreement. If you do not agree to be bound, please return this product immediately.

What chutzpah of this company ignoring basic contract law that requires disclosure and agreement BEFORE a contract is entered into! You have already bought the product and destroyed the new paper package’s top, and you are then supposed to return the product if you don’t agree to these terms? As our consumer wrote, “this is nuts.”

In addition, on the company’s website, part of its terms and conditions, seeks to absolve itself of errors, including incorrect prices and inaccurate product descriptions.

*MOUSE PRINT:

V. Availability, errors and inaccuracies

… The information found on the Service may contain errors or inaccuracies and may not be complete or current. Products or services may be mispriced, described inaccurately, or unavailable on the Service and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information found on the Service.

Why is this company, now owned by Nestlé Health Science, doing this? It seems they have been subject to various legal actions before by a competitor and a public interest health group, and they had a product recall in 2023.

We asked Nestlé twice to comment on why they thought they could rope purchasers into a mandatory arbitration agreement that was only disclosed to them after they bought the item at a retail store. They did not respond.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Eggland’s Best Sued Over Free-Roaming Claims

Two Illinois consumers just sued Eggland’s Best for misrepresenting the pleasant and leisurely life its hens that lay cage free eggs supposedly experience.

The company claims inside every carton of its cage free eggs:

Eggland's Best Claim

That says “every hen is free to roam in a pleasant natural environment…” This conjures up images of hens freely taking a leisurely stroll through a lush pasture.

Hens strolling along

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The lawsuit alleges:

The truth is that many hens producing Cage Free eggs live in typical factory farming conditions. They are confined indoors 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They live in windowless structures made of concrete, metal, and dirt. The structures contain hundreds of thousands of hens packed so closely together that each bird has around one square foot of floor space (or less) to itself, and many hens living in these structures never see the sun or breathe fresh air.

Eggland's old supplier2009 photo of an Eggland’s Best supplier

After the lawsuit was filed, the company appears to have modified how they describe the “pleasant natural environment” in which the hens live:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Eggland's new claim

In their legal case, the lawyers contend that these consumers paid a premium for Eggland’s Best eggs compared to conventional ones, expecting the hens to be humanely treated in the conditions described on the carton. They further contend they would not have paid extra or purchased these eggs at all if they knew the actual conditions where the eggs were harvested. They are suing the company for misrepresentation and deceptive business practices.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Amazon Sued Over Misleading Sale Savings

As Black Friday sales are at a peak now, it is a good time to question the savings claims that stores make that give you the impression you are getting a really deep discount.

A Florida consumer says he was induced to buy a Fire TV last February when Amazon advertised that it was on sale for limited period of time and he could save a substantial amount of money.

A typical ad for the TV on the Amazon website looked like this:

Amazon Fire TV

At $299.99, there appeared to be a $150 savings compared to the list price. Amazon defines “list price” as follows:

*MOUSE PRINT:

List price defined

In this case, Amazon says the list price is at or above the price that Amazon actually sold the product at least once in past 90 days. (According to the plaintiff, Amazon is the only seller of this product.)

According to a sales price analysis done by the consumer’s lawyer, neither this TV nor over a dozen other Fire TVs sold for the so-called list price in the recent past as far back as to last October. However…

…it was Amazon’s practice to hike up the actual sale price of the relevant Fire TV to the List Price for an extremely short period, in some instances as short as literally one day, and then immediately to lower the actual sales price back down to the normal sales prices. Amazon conducted these short spikes in price up to the List Price solely for the purpose of trying to make the stated List Prices literally true, even if in practice customers were deceived by Amazon’s omission of the material fact that the referenced List Prices were only available for such a short period of time as to virtually amount to not being available at all.

So not surprisingly, the consumer is suing Amazon for misleading sales practices including misrepresenting the saving and the limited time nature of their sales of these TVs. [See complaint.]

Share this story:

 

ADV