Internet

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Chinese Seller Pretends To Be Upscale Boston Store

Harper & Wells Boston looks and sounds like a legitimate high-end clothing store in Boston. Their website features a huge picture of the Longfellow Bridge in downtown Boston. They sell pretty pricey clothing with so-called regular prices of $349.99 for slip-ons, and a classic men’s collared button-down shirt for $249.99, for example.

Harper & Wells

Scroll down the site.

Having lived in Boston for over 50 years, MrConsumer has never heard of Harper & Wells, let alone ever shopped at such a high-end store. However, a reader of TINA.org recently tipped them off to what might be a huge ripoff.

First, there is no such store in Boston registered with the City Clerk’s office.

At the very bottom of their homepage in fine print is a business address of 73 Greenwood St,, Boston, MA 02121.

*MOUSE PRINT:

That is the address of a run-down triple decker in the Dorchester section of Boston — and not a fancy-schmancy clothing store.

Greenwood street triple decker

The company says they offer hassle-free easy returns.

easy returns

The truth is anything but because of two clauses in their return policy.

*MOUSE PRINT:

  • The customer is responsible for all return shipping costs.

  • All returns must be sent to our central warehouse.

    • While those are typical requirements at some online sellers, they are particularly meaningful in light of something buried in the company’s terms and conditions:

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    All our products are shipped directly to the consumer from our supplier in China. Any charges such as customs duties, import duties are the responsibility of the consumer.

    Apparently it can cost $30-$50 per item to return clothing to China.

    Gotcha!

    Needless to say, hopefully this company will collapse because of their hidden anti-consumer policies or by action of some state attorney general.

    For additional insights into this company, see the well-researched investigation done by Truth in Advertising.

    Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

    Bombas Accused of Running Deceptive Sales

    Bombas socksA Washington state consumer sued Bombas in July for running misleading, continuous sales. Bombas is best known as the sock company that appeared on Shark Tank in 2014 where they promoted the fact that they donate one pair of socks to needy people for every pair sold.

    According to the complaint:

    Bombas “sent emails with subject lines stating that purported sales were set to expire soon, or on a specific date. But when many sales ended, they were either extended upon expiration or another comparable sale began shortly thereafter (oftentimes within a week), and the Products’ prices did not immediately revert to and stay at the supposed pre-sale Reference Prices for a reasonably substantial time period. The cycle continues repeatedly.”

    As one example, the consumer’s lawyers showed a chart of emails sent during a short period of time and even though the 25% off was supposed to end, it continued, and then was repeated three days later.

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    Bombas emails

    Bombas is accused of violating both state and federal law that require advertised sales to be discounts from actual regular prices, not from ones that are rarely if ever charged. In addition, Washington state prohibits false or misleading subject lines in emails, such as by using false sale ending dates. The court is also being asked to enjoin Bombas from continuing to advertise in a deceptive manner.

    As of this writing, the company is seeking to have the complaint dismissed and has asked for a November hearing.

    Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

    MyPillow Sued for Price Misrepresentation

    A California consumer filed a lawsuit earlier this year against MyPillow for deceptive price advertising. She claims that the pillow never sells for the “regular” price, so the savings promoted are illusory.

    MyPillow ad

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    But Defendant’s purported “sales” are, in reality, anything but. The substantial “discount” shown to consumers is deceptive and misleading because Defendant’s Products are never sold at the full price represented. Such findings were confirmed through online archives documenting Defendant’s pricing and sale history. Additionally, Defendant has configured its Website in such a manner that a promotional code is trivially available to all consumers, rendering its “promotional code” pricing deal illusory.

    The FTC’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing is clear when it calls out phony regular prices:

    If the former price is the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, it provides a legitimate basis for the advertising of a price comparison. Where the former price is genuine, the bargain being advertised is a true one. If, on the other hand, the former price being advertised is not bona fide but fictitious—for example, where an artificial, inflated price was established for the purpose of enabling the subsequent offer of a large reduction—the “bargain” being advertised is a false one; the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects.

    The consumer’s lawyer also alleges that the company adds on a surprise mandatory junk fee — a shipping protection fee — when the consumer is checking out in violation of California’s Honest Pricing Law [see 29(a)].

    junk fee added

    The lawyers are seeking money damages, penalties, and an order requiring MyPillow to correct its sale practices. MyPillow recently tried to force the consumer into arbitration, but the judge denied the request.