Food/Groceries

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

San Diego Fights Back Against Digital Coupons

Vons Digital CouponLast week, the San Diego city council passed an ordinance to require stores that advertise digital-only deals to also provide paper versions of those coupons so anyone without digital access or know how can still benefit from the savings.

This is believed to be the first government action to fight digital discrimination in retailing and become law. As readers of Consumer World and Mouse Print* know, consumer advocates have been urging stores to offer easy, offline alternatives to digital coupons so that the many digitally-deprived seniors and lower income folks who have been shut out of these deals can have equal access. [See our series of stories.]

The bill, sponsored by city councilor Sean Elo-Rivera, is elegantly simple:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Any grocery store that offers digital discounts to consumers for the purchase of goods must make physical coupons for the digital price available to consumers upon request.

It also provides that stores post a sign alerting shoppers to this requirement.

Simplicity, sometimes, can have its own issues too. We pointed out to the city councilor that stores in San Diego like Vons and Albertsons offer 400 – 500 digital coupons each week via their apps and websites, and it would be cost prohibitive for stores to have to print a 40 or 50 page book each week with them. We suggested that the law only apply to those digital coupons and digital-only discounts that are advertised to shoppers in their weekly or periodic circulars. He agreed and said they would add clarifying language, but as the ordinance heads to the mayor for his signature, that has not been done yet.

Other states have been considering legislation that would require stores to offer shoppers other easy alternatives to digital coupons. New York and New Jersey in a particular have had bills in their legislature on the subject, but they have yet to pass. Additional states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Illinois also are considering similar proposed laws this year. (See update at Coupons in the News.)

And at the beginning of 2025, Stop & Shop, with over 350 supermarkets in the Northeast, rolled out digital coupon kiosks in all their stores so shoppers merely have to scan their loyalty card or enter their phone number and then all that week’s advertised digital coupons are automatically loaded on their account. [See our story.]

Kudos to San Diego for passing their ordinance which goes into effect this summer, and to the other states and stores working to make digital-only deals accessible to everyone.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Publix Sued Over Manipulating Package Weights on Sale Items to Hide Overcharges

Publix was recently sued by a Florida consumer alleging that the supermarket chain was systematically overcharging consumers on various products sold by weight such as meat department purchases.

For example, in January 2025, the consumer saw that pork tenderloins were on sale for $4.99 a pound instead of the regular $6.99.

Publix pork from lawsuit

The package she bought was marked with the full price of $6.99 pound, totaling $17.61 for 2.52 lbs. of pork. At the self-checkout, the consumer is shown the sale price of $4.99 a pound, but the weight of the pork has been pumped up by just over a pound, and she is charged $17.61 just as the package is marked — an overcharge of about $5.04.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Publix pork checked out

Irrespective of the finagling of the net weight of the product on the checkout screen, one would hope that most shoppers would recognize that the advertised sale price of this item was not on the package, and therefore she better be sure she is charged the lower sale price when paying. But she isn’t. She is charged the full regular price. Both the screen and sales receipt show that only the regular price was charged, while misleading the consumer into thinking that she saved $7.06.

Now, why does the company seemingly go to the trouble of inflating the net weight of the package on the checkout screen? It is not shown on the receipt and most consumers are not likely to catch the discrepancy between it and what is on the package anyway.

The lawsuit shows example after example just like this one where meat department and other random weight items are only price-marked with the regular price and not the advertised sale price. And for each of those items when purchased, the consumer was charged the full price and did not get the benefit of the sale price.

But, there is something about this case that simply does not make sense. Are all the examples of overcharges alleged in the complaint just the tip of the iceberg at Publix, or is there something about those particular packages that makes them the exception? For example, are most meat items on sale normally labeled with the sale price and thus ring up correctly at the checkout but these are the exceptions?

The Publix PR folks would not comment on the case, nor even answer that simple question. And the law firm that filed the case did not respond to our inquiry either.

So MrConsumer enlisted the help of the former director of the Massachusetts Division of Standards (our weights and measures department) who winters in Florida and lives not far from a Publix supermarket. I asked him to check sale items in the meat department to see if they are properly marked with the advertised sale price or are they like the pictures above from the lawsuit and only have the regular price on them. He confirmed they were all properly marked with the sale price per pound.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Correctly priced packageCorrectly priced sale items found recently by us

In addition, a friend in Florida went to her Publix, and found that the two meat items on sale last week were properly marked with the sale price on the label.

This suggests to me that if the Publix practice is to properly mark sale items with the sale price, then the examples in the lawsuit might have been handpicked deliberately as the few packages that somehow escaped being relabeled when they went on sale. That doesn’t excuse the overcharges on them but means the problem may not be as extensive as the lawsuit might lead some to believe.

What is also strikingly odd is the similarity that this case has to one settled last year against Walmart claiming the exact same thing. Is it possible that two completely independent companies have the same cockamamie checkout software that automatically fabricates the net weight of meat sold to mislead consumers into thinking they saved money?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Skimpflation Hits Imperial Margarine

We told you a couple of years ago how Conagra inconspicuously reformulated Smart Balance margarine by reducing its fat content from 64% to 39%.

Now comes the Flora Food Group (formerly Upfield), the maker of Imperial margarine, tinkering with the recipe for its product.

When it was advertised in the ’70s, Imperial had 80% vegetable oil, tasted like butter they said, and made you “feel like a king.”

Boy how times have changed. (For purposes of this story, we will still refer to the product as “margarine” although it no longer meets the legal definition since it has less than 80% fat.)

*MOUSE PRINT:

Imperial margarine

The most recent previous version had 53% vegetable oil. Clearly there had to have been many interim versions to get from 80% down to just 53%. Now, the current version has only 48%. And the calories dropped from 70 per tablespoon down to 60.

How did they accomplish this? Like Smart Balance, they literally watered down the product. Looking at the nutrition label reveals the change.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Imperial nutrition label

In the previous version of Imperial, vegetable oil was the primary ingredient. In the current version, water predominates. But strangely, the fat content remains seven grams per serving. How is that possible?

We asked Flora for an explanation. All a company spokesperson would say is:

Regarding the nutritional information on the label, the serving size and nutritional values are determined through detailed analytical testing in accordance with FDA guidelines. While the overall fat content of the product has been adjusted, the fat content per serving is declared accurately in accordance with FDA guidelines.

Perhaps it is a rounding issue on the number of grams of fat. Who knows?