Food/Groceries

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Shopper Sues Target for Overcharging

An Ohio consumer was traveling in Illinois, and on August 2 he bought some groceries at a local Target store only to discover after he checked out that he was overcharged for two boxes of Ritz crackers. Instead of them being rung up at the $3.49 shelf price he was charged $3.79.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Target Overcharge

This must have been his lucky day because he found an Illinois lawyer who exactly one week later filed a class action lawsuit against Target.

The suit alleges overcharging by the company, misrepresentation, and unfair or deceptive business practices not just in Illinois but at its stores nationwide. To support this claim, the lawyer had done his own little survey in a handful of other states and found that checkout prices were higher than the shelf prices for a number of items, mostly groceries.

This case follows our reporting (see story) in March of an extensive investigation of Target by seven district attorneys in California for not only overcharging some customers at the checkout, but also advertising a lower price online than the consumer could obtain in the store. In that case, Target was fined $5-mil.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

The No Tequila in “Lime-A-Rita” Case Nears Settlement

In May, we reported that a tentative settlement was reached in a case against Anheuser-Busch for marketing its Rita brand of drinks like Lime-A-Rita, which did not contain tequila, Ritas Sangria Spritz, which did not contain red wine, and Ritas Mohito Fizz when in fact it did not contain rum.

The only disclosure about this was on the bottom of the carton, where consumers are not likely to look nor understand that fact based on the wording they used.

Lime-a-Rita

Now the parties have reach a more specific agreement.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Settlement Class members may seek a refund for a maximum total refund of $21.25 per Household with Proof of Purchase. Settlement Class members may seek a maximum total refund of $9.75 per Household without Proof of Purchase.

A-B has also agreed to make changes to the marketing, labeling, and packaging of the Products, including the addition of the word Malt Beverage on the consumer facing panels of the Product packaging, and clear disclaimers on the website noting that each of the Products Does not contain distilled spirits.

One New Label Samplenew label

So the company will modify their labeling and pay ten or twenty dollars to affected consumers. But honestly, the mock-up of this part of their new label doesn’t seem to communicate an awful lot new in a conspicuous manner.

The judge still has to approve the settlement. We’ll provide a link in Consumer World to the claim form at that time.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

The Subway Tuna/No Tuna Saga Continues

For the past year and a half, two California consumers have doggedly pursued Subway, the sub sandwich restaurant chain, claiming that its tuna subs contained no tuna according to their laboratory tests. (See our first story.)

The case brought headlines worldwide.

Subway Tuna Headlines
.

After some media conducted their own tests and one found real tuna in Subway’s tuna sandwiches, the consumers withdrew the case and filed an amended complaint claiming that their tuna was not 100% sustainably caught skipjack or yellowfin tuna. (See our third story.)

A judge dismissed the case, and then the consumers refiled a new one, now claiming they tested 20 samples from all over California, and only one contained tuna. (See our fifth story.)

The company has consistently denied the allegations and recently moved to have the current case dismissed again.

The judge made his ruling last week.

*MOUSE PRINT:

As Subway correctly notes, the amended complaint contains no facts pertaining to Dhanowa [one of the two consumers suing Subway]; it “does not allege that she purchased any Subway products, does not allege that she relied on any statements that Subway made and does not allege that she suffered any harm.” ECF No. 57 at 9. Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument. The Court therefore grants Subway’s motion to dismiss Dhanowa’s claims.

So Subway wins on that score, getting rid of one of the two plaintiffs.

The judge continued:

…the Court will not dismiss the allegation that the tuna products contain “other fish species, animal species, or miscellaneous products.” Moreover, even if the Court accepted Subway’s statement that all non-tuna DNA must be caused by cross-contact with other Subway ingredients, it still would not dismiss the complaint on this basis.

Finally, the complaint alleges that the products “wholly lack[] tuna as an ingredient.” Because a reasonable consumer would expect that a product advertised as “tuna” to contain at least some tuna as an ingredient, the Court also denies the motion to dismiss this theory.

The Court finds that the complaint “as a whole” is sufficiently specific about what is false and why. It states that the “tuna” description is false either because there is no tuna in the products and/or because there are ingredients that a reasonable person would not expect to find in an item described as “tuna.” That is enough.

In summary, the judge felt the one remaining consumer theoretically does have a case if she can prove that Subway tuna sandwiches are not 100% tuna (except for mayonnaise, bread, etc.) or contain unexpected non-tuna components.

No date has been set for the trial. We’ll keep an eye on the case.