Food/Groceries

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Taco Bell Sued for Misrepresenting Portion Sizes

We have all seen fast food restaurant advertising where the burger or sandwich looks so piled high with so much meat and fixings, who could resist. The reality often is that what you are served is perhaps half the size of what was shown in the advertising.

Now a New York consumer says enough of this deception as he files a suit against Taco Bell for allegedly showing some of the specialties to be doubled their actual size.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Taco Bell Crunchwrap Supreme

Here, the Crunchwrap Supreme looks nothing like the advertisement in terms of the amount of meat or salad in it.

And below is how Taco Bell’s Mexican Pizza is advertised versus what the consumer got served. [Spelling errors from the lawsuit.]

Mexican Pizza

The complaint goes on to allege:

Taco Bell materially overstates the amount of beef and/or ingredients contained in its advertisements for the Overstated Menu Items by at least double the amount. Taco Bell’s advertisements for the Overstated Menu Items are unfair and financially damaging to consumers as they are receiving a product that is materially lower in value than what is being promised. If Plaintiff knew that the Mexican Pizza contained half of the amount of beef and bean filling as advertised, he would not have purchased the Mexican Pizza and/or he would not have paid the $5.49 price that he paid for the Mexican Pizza.

The company is being sued for unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices. The consumer is seeking a stop to the misrepresentations and wants monetary damages for all similarly situated diners. Taco Bell has not responded to media requests for comments.

We hope other companies that advertise gargantuan sandwiches but serve you ones with much less meat will also find themselves in front of a judge.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Shoppers Sue Retailers Over Sneaky Practices – Part 3

We wrap up our series of stories where retail shoppers are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. This time, a Massachusetts shopper is suing Stop & Shop supermarket over their store brand of flushable wipes.

Stop & Shop Flushable Wipes

The consumer contends in his lawsuit that flushable wipes he bought are not actually flushable.

*MOUSE PRINT:

…reasonable consumers expect that “flushable wipe” products will disperse in a short amount of time after flushing and therefore will not clog or cause other operational problems in household sewage lines, septic systems, and other standard wastewater equipment. To be suitable for flushing, any “flushable” product must be able to quickly disintegrate into small pieces such that it can pass through sewer systems without issue.

4. Contrary to Defendant’s representations, the Wipes are not, in fact, flushable. The Wipes do not break apart or disperse after flushing.

Neither the consumer nor his attorney presents any evidence that the Stop & Shop brand of flushable wipes were tested by them and were shown not to disintegrate quickly. They offered studies of other brands that demonstrated the likelihood they would clog drain lines. This Consumer Reports video from almost 10 years ago showed how some brands could likely clog toilets but others would not.

In addition, the consumer claims that the packaging of these wipes cleverly partially covers the warning of when these wipes should not be flushed. You have to unfold the white flap on the bottom on the package to see the entire small print disclosure.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Stop & Shop wipes warning

We’ll have to see if the consumer’s case holds up in court or disintegrates.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Shoppers Sue Retailers Over Sneaky Practices – Part 1

They’re mad as hell and not going take it anymore. That seems to be the case these days when shoppers have had enough of retailers’ broken promises. Over the next three weeks, we will examine three recently filed class action lawsuits again some big name chains. First up — Safeway.

Safeway

Everyone loves buy one, get one free (BOGO) offers when they are legitimate. But one Washington state consumer says Safeway is not playing fair because she alleges the supermarket chain raises the price on items that are offered as BOGO specials.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In her complaint, the consumer claims:

Contrary to the language of Defendants’ free product offers, the BOGO products are not actually free. Instead, Defendants increase the price of the first unit of the product to cover the cost of the second purportedly “free” unit of the product.

Throughout the class period Defendants routinely increased the regular retail price of items when offering them in BOGO sales. For example, during the class period, Safeway sold boneless, skinless chicken breasts to Club Card members for $2.99 per pound. Within the same month, Safeway sold seasoned boneless, skinless chicken breasts for $5.99 per pound in a Buy 1, Get 1 Free promotion. Thus, Club Card consumers overpaid by $3.00 per pound for any BOGO chicken purchase.

Safeway chicken breasts

Other examples in the lawsuit don’t give clear-cut examples demonstrating that the one purchased item had doubled in price to make up the cost of the free item.

And worse for the consumer and her lawyer, they may not understand the variability of retail pricing. Stores sell goods at a variety of different prices. In the case of the chicken breasts above, for example, it is unlikely that $2.99 was the regular price of that item. It perhaps was on sale for $2.99 a pound one particular week. So to suggest that whenever Safeway runs a BOGO sale on chicken breasts it should have been $2.99 for the first package and the second free is just plain wrong.

Regular prices have to be bona fide. Generally speaking, products must be offered at full regular price for a substantial period of time and then they can be periodically discounted. In the case of buy one, get one free offers, under Federal Trade Commission rules, retailers cannot jack-up the price of the purchased item beyond its regular price.

So, if the court finds that Safeway only charges $5.99 a pound for chicken breasts when offered on a BOGO basis, then the consumer has a great case. But if it really charges $5.99 a pound “regularly” when not on sale, but occasionally has a sale for $2.99 a pound, the case may fail.

Of note, however, is a case that Safeway and Albertsons have recently agreed to settle for $107-million after similar allegations were made about buy one, get one free meat sales in Oregon. A similar suit complaining about Safeway’s BOGO practices was also filed in California in June.

Next week, we’ll examine a complaint filed against Best Buy for not honoring its price guarantee.