Food/Groceries

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Thanks for Nothing — Winter 2022

We continue our series of little annoyances about ads, products, and offers that are irritating, real head-scratchers, or just downright misleading. This time around, we concentrate on some not-so-funny class action lawsuits that all make the same point — you can’t always believe the big print on the front of the product.

Example #1 — Blue Diamond Smoked Almonds

For nut lovers, smoked almonds are a real treat… like these Blue Diamond smokehouse almonds.

Blue Diamond Smokehouse

A more careful inspection of the product label reveals a surprise, however.

*MOUSE PRINT:

ingredients

That’s right, it appears that the nuts are merely smoke-flavored rather than actually smoked. And of course, the matter is the subject of an ongoing class action lawsuit. Likewise, a similar lawsuit was just filed against Family Dollar for labeling its store brand almonds as “smoked” when they are really just smoke- flavored. Thanks for nothing, Blue Diamond and Family Dollar.

Example #2 — Poland Spring Water

It has been going on for close to four years now that consumers have alleged in a class action lawsuit that Poland Spring water is not really “100% natural spring water” as the product promises.

Poland Spring

*MOUSE PRINT:

According to the Food and Drug Administration, if bottled water is to be sold as “spring water,” it must be “derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth,” and there must be a “natural force causing the water to flow to the surface through a natural orifice.”

The consumers and their lawyers in this case say Poland Spring water doesn’t meet the federal definition because it is really ground and surface water from a bunch of artificial springs in Maine.

The latest development in the case is that the period of time for which the company could be held liable if ruled against is only three years. When you can’t believe the front product label that this is “spring water” (if that turns out to be so), thanks for nothing, Nestlé (now known as Blue Triton Brands).

Example #3– Macy’s Sheets Thread Count

The plaintiffs in this case are two dissatisfied customers who claim that the bed sheets they purchased at Macy’s in California and Missouri, respectively, were labeled with inflated thread counts.

Macy's sheets

*MOUSE PRINT:

One of them claims that her 900 thread-count sheets were actually 249 thread-count and the other claims that her 1000 thread-count sheets were “far less.”

The California part of this long-running case has been allowed to proceed as the judge certified the class of consumers. If what this consumer claims is so, then the thread counts on various sheets are wildly inflated. Since that is the primary way that most shoppers judge the quality of sheets along with material used, thanks for nothing, Macy’s.

If you find a product that has been grossly mispresented on the label, or another type of ad that is just outrageous or funny, please submit it to: edgar (at symbol) MousePrint.org . Thanks.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Goli Gummies Dealt Bitter Pill on Claims

Recently the National Advertising Division (NAD) of Better Business Bureau National Programs came down hard on Goli Nutrition, the maker of those apple cider vinegar (ACV) gummies that are advertised on TV and on their website.

The product seemed like a sweet alternative for those who take several doses a day of traditional liquid ACV to control their acid reflux. Even diluted with water, drinking ACV is not pleasant.


Goli 3 times a day

Given the small dose recommended by the company, of particular concern were their broad claims like, “Finally a delicious way to get all the benefits of apple cider vinegar.”

*MOUSE PRINT:

In its decision…

NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue or modify its advertising to avoid conveying the unsupported message that the amount of ACV contained in its gummies is associated with the health benefits of traditional liquid ACV.

Further, NAD found that the recommended dosage statement, “1 to 2 gummies 3x day,” in the context of its advertising conveyed the unsupported implied message that the recommended dosage provides the nutritional and health benefits associated with the recommended dose of traditional ACV and recommended it be discontinued.

During the proceeding before the NAD, Goli agreed to voluntarily discontinue the claim it made in several of the challenged advertisements that two Goli gummies were the equivalent of one dose of traditional apple cider vinegar. Nonetheless, it is appealing NAD’s decision. But that is not the end of the controversy for Goli. These and other issues are supposedly the subject of pending federal litigation.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

At CVS, You May Get Shortchanged Using Multiple Coupons

CVS logoA Consumer World reader, M.D., wrote to say that CVS shortchanged him recently when he went to purchase a pair of Dr. Scholl’s insoles after applying various coupons.

In particular, M.D.’s order included a Dr. Scholl’s product with a $21.49 regular price. He tendered two coupons: a $5-off Dr. Scholl’s manufacturer’s coupon and a CVS 50% off coupon on any one non-sale item. (To simplify this example, we are omitting CVS ExtraBucks credits, other account credits and sales tax that would otherwise apply in our consumer’s actual transaction.)

M.D. was expecting to get the Dr. Scholl’s insoles for around $5.74:

    $21.49 Dr. Scholl’s regular price
-$10.75 50% off CVS coupon
$10.74 Price after 50% off
         -$5.00 $5 manufacturer’s coupon
=================================
$ 5.74 net price

Instead, according to his receipt, he was charged $8.24:

$21.49 Dr. Scholl’s regular price     
-$5.00 $5 manufacturer’s coupon
           $16.49 Price after mfr. coupon deducted
-$ 8.25 50% off CVS coupon          
==================================
$ 8.24 net price

The difference in those two totals is caused by the order in which the discounts were applied. If the percent-off discount is applied first followed by the deduction for the dollars-off coupon, the consumer comes out ahead and pays a lower price. If the dollars-off coupon is applied first followed by the percent-off discount, then the store comes out ahead and the consumer pays more. It’s simple math.

In our consumer’s example, CVS programmed its checkout system to use the second method saving it $2.50 on the transaction. It doesn’t matter the order the consumer presents the coupons to the checkout clerk because the checkout system juggles the order to the company’s benefit. And the CVS coupon policy says they can do just that:

*MOUSE PRINT:

coupon policy

CVS’ internal policy of ordering the coupons to its own benefit is not uncommon. Kohl’s, which offers percent-off and dollars-off coupons simultaneously,does it the same way — dollars-off coupons first, then percent-off coupons. The difference is that Kohl’s clearly discloses this method in their coupon acceptance policy and they don’t accept manufacturers’ coupons.

In our consumer’s particular case, there is an additional important distinction to be made. The $5 off coupon he presented was a manufacturer’s coupon and the 50% off coupon was a CVS one. We believe, as does M.D., that CVS should not get an extra benefit because the consumer also tendered a manufacturer’s coupon. They offered 50% off the regular full price of an item via their own coupon, and it was their obligation to do just that. Instead, contrary to the terms of the coupon, they only gave the consumer 50% off a reduced price.

If the consumer was savvy enough to use a manufacturer’s coupon to save more, good for him. After all, the store is getting that full $5 back from the manufacturer no matter what. Now, had both coupons been from CVS, there is a stronger argument to be made since both discounts were coming out of the store’s own pocket that the store can decide in what order they are applied.

We asked the PR folks at CVS to comment on this case, and whether they will change the company’s algorithm to apply a store coupon first when a manufacturer’s coupon is also tendered.

Their PR spokesperson’s reply in relevant part only restated the company’s policy:

As outlined in CVS Pharmacy’s coupon policy which is included both online and in each store, we reserve the right to process coupons in any order.

We think CVS missed an opportunity to stand back and re-evaluate its coupon acceptance policy to make it more fair for customers.