Business

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Amazon Raises Free Shipping Threshold to $35 Depending on Location

You may now have to spend more at Amazon.com in order to qualify for free shipping if you are not a Prime member. (Prime members pay $139 a year for free shipping with no minimum order size.)

For years, as long as a non-Prime member made at least a $25 minimum purchase, you got free shipping. Now there is a new $35 minimum but it does not apply to everyone. Who has to pay more? Believe it or not, that seems to depend on the delivery address — the zip code where you live.

For example, if you live in downtown Seattle where Amazon is headquartered, free shipping comes with only a minimum purchase of $25. If you wanted to buy this test item, you would need to purchase two packages to avoid shipping charges.

Amazon in Seattle

*MOUSE PRINT:

But, if you live in the next city over in Bellevue, Washington, you would need a $35 minimum purchase and would have to buy three of them to get them shipped free.

Amazon Bellevue

The same is true across the country, in certain geographic regions and in some neighboring towns. So for example in New York City, Manhattanites are treated to the lower $25 threshold, while those in Brooklyn have to spend $35 or more.

*MOUSE PRINT:

NY shipping charges vary

Live in Beverly Hills? You get the $25 minimum. But reside in Westwood right next door and you will need a $35 purchase to get delivery there free.

If you call Lincoln, Nebraska home, you have to spend at least $35 now to get free shipping to your house. But, if you live in Omaha, just 58 miles away, your minimum purchase threshold is only $25.

In Massachusetts where MrConsumer lives, customers in Revere only need a $25 purchase to get free shipping, while those in Lynn, the next town over, have to spend at least $35.

We asked Amazon why they implemented the higher free shipping threshold in some areas. Is this some type of market test? Is this just the first step in extending the $35 minimum to all non-Prime members? Or are they planning to make this two-tier system permanent?

In a statement to Consumer World, a company spokesperson said, “We continually evaluate our offerings and make adjustments based on those assessments. We’re currently testing a $35 minimum for non-Prime customers to qualify for free shipping.”

It is unfortunate when consumers are still struggling with inflation and higher product prices that Amazon has chosen to pile on and charge for shipping that previously was free.

What do you think of Amazon’s change?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

WSJ Goofs Reporting Walmart+ Discount for Seniors

On July 20th, The Wall Street Journal published a story claiming that Walmart was offering a 50%-off discount on its Walmart+ membership program to recipients of various government assistance programs including those on Social Security. Wow!

Walmart+, which is regularly $98/yr, is similar to Amazon Prime giving members free shipping even on small orders and other benefits such as a free Paramount+ membership.

WSJ - Walmart+ half price for Social Security recipients

At just $49, even MrConsumer, who refuses to pay $139 for Amazon Prime, might consider a Walmart+ Assist membership. But being a good and suspicious consumer, he wanted to review the fine print terms and conditions first.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Walmart+ Assist terms

In that alphabet soup of government programs, Social Security is not listed. And even in Walmart’s press release announcing the Walmart+ Assist program, there is no mention of Social Security recipients being eligible for it.

So why in the world did the Wall Street Journal, right in its headline, say that those on Social Security qualified? The reporter, a summer intern at the paper, probably thought that SSI meant “Social Security” when in fact it stands for “Supplemental Security Income” — a program that provides monthly payments for those with disabilities or blindness.

But, within two hours of our writing to her, the headline was corrected, and a note about the error was appended to the end of the story.

New Headline

*MOUSE PRINT:

WSJ correction

So the lesson here is… if a news story sounds too good to be true, sometimes it is.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Subway’s “No Tuna” in Their Tuna Sandwiches Saga Nears an End

It has been going on for nearly two-and-half years already. Two California consumers claimed there was no tuna in Subway’s tuna sandwiches.

The case generated headlines worldwide.

Subway Tuna Headlines

We’ve written six stories about the case. First the consumer claimed there was no tuna in their subs, then her lawyers said it wasn’t 100-percent tuna, and on and on. The lawyers filed and withdrew complaint after complaint, changing their theory of the case.

The company got a huge black eye because of these cases, and probably suffered significant reputational damage and lost sales.

Now, on April 20, 2023, the consumer sought to voluntarily dismiss the case.

But guess what? Subway said not so fast. In essence, because the consumer and her lawyers put the company through the wringer even after having been provided with documentation pinpointing the place where the tuna is captured to how it’s packaged, Subway’s lawyers are seeking sanctions against the consumer’s lawyers.

They say the suit should have been dropped long ago, and way before the company had to spend over $600,000 in legal fees to defend itself. The six consumer lawyers filed various pleadings, they say, to extend the lawsuit “motivated by the prospect that Subway might simply pay a windfall settlement.”

For their part, the consumer’s lawyers countered that the consumer is withdrawing her complaint because of health issues. They went on to say:

Plaintiff filed her complaints with a good faith, non-frivolous basis based on testing and evidence that there was something amiss with respect to the meat product defendants were selling as ‘tuna.’

MrConsumer has always thought the case was a little fishy because of the questionable test results the consumer’s lawyers claimed to have. Now, finally, the case should come to a conclusion after an August hearing.