Food/Groceries

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Dunkin’ Sued Over Refused Gift Card Refunds

Dunkin' Gift CardAbout 10 states require sellers of gift cards to refund small balances of money left on previously used cards. So if a $50 card only has $4.82 left on it, you can ask for that money back. The trouble is, some gift card sellers, like Dunkin’, are allegedly refusing to make those refunds.

So earlier this month, a New Jersey consumer sued Dunkin’ in its home state of Massachusetts on behalf of all customers who have been refused refunds (see complaint).

The complaint alleges that Dunkin’ has no mechanism for making these refunds when a customer requests it despite language on its cards that says:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“Card Value may not be redeemed for cash, check or credit unless required by law [emphasis added].

Under the laws of both Massachusetts and New Jersey, when a gift card’s balance is below $5 (MA is $5 or less), upon request, the merchant must refund the balance.

*MOUSE PRINT:

A purchaser or holder of a gift certificate … which has been redeemed in part, such that the value remaining is $5.00 or less, shall make an election to receive the balance in cash or continue using the gift certificate. — M.G.L.A. 200A § 5D

[I]f a stored value card is redeemed and a balance of less than $5 remains on the card after redemption, at the owner’s request the merchant or other entity redeeming the card shall refund the balance in cash to the owner. — N.J.S.A. 46:30B-42.1(h)

The court case alleges that Dunkin’ has been unjustly enriched by pocketing all the remaining balances on cards, and is in breach of various consumer protection laws in addition to the gift card statutes. Dunkin’ did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

It will be interesting to hear what imaginative defense Dunkin’ comes up with, or perhaps it will just quickly settle the case.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Are Nellie’s Eggs Really “Free Range?”

Nellie egg boxWith egg prices going through the roof at the moment, some companies still promote premium-priced eggs because they are seemingly raised in a more humane way such as those that are “cage-free” or “free range.”

One such company, Nellie’s, sells Free Range eggs and claims in this video that unlike other egg farming factories that house their hens in overcrowded warehouses…

“Our free-range hens get to live their lives like real hens, with access to pasture everyday in good weather. Our hens can spread their wings, forage in the fields, or scratch in the dirt.”

Nellie's pasture

Even on their [previous] box, the company claims that their chickens “get to peck, perch, and play on plenty of green grass.”

Nellie box claim

But, a class action lawsuit says that a more accurate depiction of the everyday conditions Nellie’s hens face is this, taken from a PETA video:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Nellie hens

The complaint alleges:

… the conditions in Defendant’s henhouses are virtually indistinguishable as those from the example they show as being not “Free Range” where hens are essentially “liv[ing] inside a space much like a large overcrowded warehouse.” Nellie’s itself describes this as a “grim existence” for these hens. But contrary to its packaging representations, that is precisely how Nellie’s own hens live.

Defendant’s hens can only get outside through small hatches cut at intervals along the sides of the shed. The hatches are closed all winter and during inclement weather. In pleasant weather the hatches are closed at night and are not opened until 1 pm the next day.

Because of this overcrowding and limited time that the hatches are open, many of Defendant’s hens are unable to ever access the hatches or the outdoor space.

The lawsuit, therefore, alleges false and misleading claims are being made by the company. A couple of months ago, a judge denied the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Here is a little more about the case and the judge’s initial ruling.

Godiva Case Update

Back in December we told you about a class action case filed by consumers against the Godiva chocolate company for misleading customers into believing that their expensive delicacies were made in Belgium when in fact they are manufactured in Pennsylvania. (See our original story.)

Now a judge has approved a negotiated settlement between the parties giving consumers who purchased Godiva products between 2015 and 2021 up to a $25 refund with proof of purchase. Several state AGs objected saying the terms of the settlement did not benefit consumers enough, but the judge denied their claims. Oddly, the deadline for filing claims passed before the judge made his final ruling.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Anheuser-Busch Settles “Lime-a-Rita” Case

With the popularity of margaritas, sangrias, mohitos and other specialty cocktails, it is no wonder that big beverage companies would want to mass market some of those drinks. And that is exactly what beer giant Anheuser-Busch did by introducing the “Ritas” brand of drinks like “Lime-A-Rita,” “Ritas Sangria Spritz,” and “Ritas Mohito Fizz.”

Lime-a-Rita

There was just one problem according to a couple of class action lawsuits [second lawsuit] filed against the company.

*MOUSE PRINT:

…reasonable consumers of the Margarita Products expect that based on the word “MARGARITA” on the package of the Margarita Products the products would contain tequila. This belief is further reinforced by the image of a salted margarita glass on the packaging.

However, unbeknownst to those consumers, the Margarita Products do not contain tequila.

Moreover, nowhere on the front, sides, or top panel of the packaging (the consumer facing panels) does Defendant state that the Margarita Products do not have tequila, or that the Margarita Products are actually just flavored beers that taste like a margarita. Instead, the bottom panel of the packaging, where no reasonable consumer would look prior to purchase, contains a small font statement that the Margarita Products are actually “Malt Beverage[s] With Natural Flavors and Caramel Color”.

In any event, to the extent seen on the underside packaging, reasonable consumers are unlikely to understand the foregoing “malt beverage” statement as meaning that the Margarita Products do not contain tequila…

So this margarita drink which most consumers would expect to contain tequila, has none. And the only disclosure about that is on the bottom of the carton, where consumers are not likely to look nor understand that fact based on the wording there.

The plaintiffs also allege that the company’s sister products don’t contain the specialty alcohol normally associated with that type of drink. So, their sangria doesn’t contain red wine, and their mohito doesn’t contain rum. Basically, these products are all just flavored beers. That means, according to the consumers’ lawyers, that Anheuser-Busch mispresented these products in violation of consumer protection laws.

In a bit of legal maneuvering, one of the cases was withdrawn and the other was just tentatively settled. Details of the settlement were not available at publication time.