Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Did Albertsons Make Digital Coupons Easier to Find and Use?

For the past two years, consumer groups including Consumer World have tried to sensitize leaders in the supermarket industry about the discriminatory effect of offering certain grocery deals only when using a digital coupon (see story). The issue is that many seniors and lower income folks don’t have cellphones or internet access. As such, they have been cut out of a major way to save on one’s grocery bill at a time of very high grocery prices.

In addition, digitally-savvy shoppers have complained that the digital coupon section of supermarket apps is hard to use because there are hundreds of coupons there thus making that week’s sale item coupons hard to find.

So, are stores doing anything to address these concerns?
 

Star Market and Shaw’s

MrConsumer got very excited recently when Star Market and Shaw’s in New England (owned by Albertsons) seemed to be offering an easy way to clip all that week’s digital coupons required to purchase advertised sale items with just one-click of the cellphone.

Star QR Code

And when he followed their instructions, this is a screenshot of what he saw:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Star QR error

We tracked down the firm that helps create functionality like this for companies. They claimed it worked after testing it around the country (but we suspect they did not follow the explicit instructions noted above to scan the QR code in the app where it absolutely did not work). But, when we contacted Albertsons, they admitted they goofed.

The QR code does not scan from within the 4U Rewards app. We recognize that the verbiage in the flyer needs to be clarified, and our team is making these updates for future circulars. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

They also indicated that all the QR code does is bring one to the coupon section of their app where “the customer can click on the deals that are most valuable for their shopping trip.” So contrary to the plain wording in their circular, the company did not create a simple way “to add all the digital offers” to one’s account.

 

Safeway

Albertsons owns many other supermarket chains including Safeway. For several years, they have utilized “clip or click” coupons but in only some of their locations. These allow non-tech-savvy shoppers to clip and use their digital coupons the old-fashioned way with scissors. Great! More chains should do that.

Safeway Clip or Click

But despite what some might assume, those with the Safeway app cannot simply scan the coupons they want to load them directly into their account. They have to visit the Safeway website or app, and sort through the hundreds of digital offers there to find and e-clip them individually.

In reply to an inquiry from us, Albertsons demonstrated that roundabout way one has to e-clip digital coupons to one’s account. We suggested they could make the system so much easier if they allowed coupons in the ad to be scanned directly into one’s account. They did not comment.

Shoppers at Safeway also cannot automatically “add all digital offers” from this ad to one’s account by scanning the master barcode in the upper right corner of the circular. As with Star and Shaw’s, all that code does when it works is take you to the coupon section of their website or app. Then you have to find the ones you want.

We continue to hope that supermarkets will make it easier for all shoppers, tech savvy or not, to save money by being able to buy digital-only sale items with less hassle. That day is coming at some chains… so stay tuned.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Verizon’s Trade In “Any Phone” Offer for a Free iPhone 16 Pro Questioned

Regular reader and commenter Joel V. recently caught a bit of nasty fine print by Verizon Wireless in a new TV commercial.


Most viewers would understand the ad to say that if you trade in any cellphone in any condition, Verizon will give you a free iPhone 16 Pro. It would be reasonable to assume that you have to buy a plan from the company because they are simply not just handing out free phones without any catches.

*MOUSE PRINT:

What our consumer caught was this tiny disclosure that was on the screen for about one-and-half seconds:

Verizon "any phone" fine print

Rather than the trade-in offer being good on “any” phone as the commercial explicitly states, it is only valid on these three brands: Apple, Google, and Samsung. What about people who own a phone from Motorola, LG, ZTE, OnePlus, or another brand? They’re out of luck apparently.

Additional terms of this offer are not orally stated in the commercial. But like a similar offer we dissected last December (see prior story), Verizon buries the full details in a three-second on-screen disclosure in tiny print toward the end of the commercial. Those terms include the requirement to purchase the iPhone 16 Pro for $999.99 (either pay upfront or be charged equal monthly payments) and get 1/36th of the purchase price back in a billing credit rebate each month for three years. You also have to sign up for Verizon’s most expensive plan, Unlimited Ultimate, for about $100 a month.

We asked the company why it advertised this trade-in offer as applying to “any” phone when in fact it only applies to three specific brands, why it doesn’t orally disclose other important requirements, and whether they are going to change the commercial. The company did not respond to multiple inquiries.

Consumer World has asked the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs to take on this case because of the deceptive nature of the commercial.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Do Political Influencers Have to Disclose Paid Posts?

More and more political campaigns are trying to get their messages out to younger generations. How do they do this? Both major parties are paying internet influencers to create content, usually video messages, in various social media like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, X, and others.

So the question is, do these influencers have to disclose to viewers when they were paid to espouse a particular point of view (which probably was there own anyway)? Here’s what one influencer says:

And here’s what the law says. The Federal Trade Commission has specific rules requiring infuencers to clearly disclose material connections they have with companies if they were paid for their opinions. In a commercial context, they believe that since this is a kind of paid advertising, anyone seeing it has a right to know what they are seeing or hearing may have been influenced by the money the person was paid.

But the FTC regulates trade and commerce and opinions spouted by internet influencers about politcal issues and figures is not within their jurisdiction.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) oversees political advertising. Last December they endeavored to modernize regulations governing internet communications, but decided not to require internet influencers to disclose to viewers and readers if they were paid by a political entity. Some of commissioners at the FEC disagreed saying this was a missed opportunity.

Some states have begun requiring social media influencers to disclose if they were paid to espouse a particular political opinion on a candidate or issue. Last year, California passed such a law. And in June, the Texas Ethics Commission passed a requirement that influencers have to disclose if a post or video is a paid political advertisement.

Various social media platforms have their own rules that posters must follow.

*MOUSE PRINT:

TikTok has the strictest policy — banning political advertising entirely, including branded political content from creators. Instagram and Facebook, owned by Meta, allow for paid political ads and sponsored political content from creators as long as the group is registered in its ad library. … And X, formerly Twitter, lifted its political ads ban last year. — Politico

What is your opinion? Should influencers who are paid to espouse a particular political point of view disclose that fact, whether the law requires it or not?

[Please do not turn the comments into a Trump vs. Harris, or democrats vs. republicans discussion.]