I’m highly doubtful that a $555 iPad model listing concurrently for $1100 anywhere else could be a NEW one, which is what the price match policy required.

Theory 1: Consumer didn’t realize price-matching didn’t apply to clearance/refurbished/open box units. At half price, it had to be one of these.

Theory 2 (my money’s on this one): Consumer understood the price-match rules, but TigerDirect erroneously advertised the deeply discounted units as New. Hundreds or thousands of dubious price-match claims pour in at Best Buy stores, potentially costing them millions, and to stanch the flow, they respond by excluding TigerDirect entirely until they can sort out what was really going on.

My guess is it will turn out that TD did in fact erroneously advertise or label the units New, in which case I don’t think it would be fair to expect Best Buy to be responsible for paying for TD’s error. I also think the removal will be temporary until they figure out a way to guard against this in the future. The lawyers are surely working on the new language as we speak.

I’m going to take Best Buy’s side here, in removing Tiger Direct from the policy before too much damage could be done. It doesn’t seem to me like bad faith on Best Buy’s part refusing to honor an unreasonable (from their perspective) application of their price-match policy. There’s probably a bigger case to be had against TD if they improperly sold iPads as New.

I’m curious what the law requires, and I’m also curious if Best Buy has insurance for these claims, and if it is their insurer who is refusing to pay.