Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Shoppers Sue Retailers Over Sneaky Practices – Part 2

Last week, we reviewed a case brought against Safeway for allegedly deceptive buy one, get one free offers. This week we examine a class action lawsuit claiming that Best Buy changed its price matching policy midway through one consumer’s claim.

Apple iPad ProThis past February 4, a New York consumer with knowledge of Best Buy’s price matching policy, spotted an Apple iPad Pro for a great price ($555.99) at TigerDirect.com. But he wanted to buy it locally from Best Buy online where it was twice the price ($1099.99). He contacted Best Buy and was told to buy it online at the full price and then upon verification, they would credit back the difference under their price matching policy.

It was such a good deal, this consumer decided to buy another one online at Best Buy. He then traveled to his local store to pick them up. Tempted by the tremendous savings, he told the local store he would like to buy a third one too while he was there.

According to the complaint, the store refused to price match the third notebook as well as the first two. And other Best Buy stores he visited similarly refused.

At the time of his purchase, TigerDirect.com was one of the specifically enumerated online competitors that it would price match:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Stores Best Buy price matchesJanuary 2023 screenshot

*MOUSE PRINT:

And then, magically on February 6, 2023, Best Buy changed its price match guarantee on its website. What online retailer is now missing from the list? You guessed it, TigerDirect.

Best Buy Price Match Guarantee Feb. 23

We don’t know if Best Buy has a reasonable explanation for their actions in denying the refunds to this consumer, but there probably is another side to this story.

Feel free to comment about your experience with price guarantees in the comments.

Next week we conclude our three-part series with one consumer suing a big supermarket chain for selling flushable wipes that really aren’t flushable.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Supermarket Sweepstakes’ Free Entry Method Challenged

In early June, a number of the Albertsons Companies supermarket chains (Acme, Albertsons, Carrs, Jewel-Osco, Pavilions, Randalls, Safeway, Shaw’s, Star Market, Tom Thumb, and Vons) began running a “Flavor Adventure” sweepstakes game with over $6-million in prizes. The more you spend in the store, the more entries you get.

Sweepstakes email

But, no commercial enterprise can require you to spend money in order for a chance at a prize — that is the classic definition of an illegal lottery. They have to offer a simple, free method whereby anyone can enter without making a purchase. That is called an “alternate method of entry” (AMOE). So at the bottom of the company’s email shown above in (too) tiny type is information about that free means of entry with the magic words “no purchase necessary.”

*MOUSE PRINT:

No purchase necessary disclosure footnote

That footnote says to find out the free AMOE you have to visit this link (called “rules”) or for all the details, this link called “Official Rules.” They both take you to the same place. [Note: URLs depersonalized]

Buried in those rules is the free method of entry:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Free means of entry

Rather than tell you in simple terms where to send in an entry, like your name and address on a 3 x 5 card, or provide a specific URL, it just says to go to the promotion website, click on the menu, and then the rules button, etc. Didn’t I already click on the rules and now it telling me to do it again. And which menu on the website am I supposed to click?

But let’s play along. Going to the promotion’s website, [page varies for non-loyalty club members] brings us here. There is no menu, but there is a “play now” button and farther down the page yet another link to the official rules.

If you click “play now” the next page gives you a pop-up that among other things says you have to be a loyalty club member to participate (itself a questionable requirement), and yet another instruction to “See Official Rules for free method of entry.” OMG. Do you feel like you are being sent in circles?

Start playing

And when you click “start playing,” then you get yet another screen with instructions to see the rules about playing for free:

Start playing 2

And if you click that button, you get yet another button to start the game.

Play now

Clicking that button brings up what appears to be the actual start of the game… but nowhere to be seen is how you enter the sweepstakes without having to demonstrate that you bought groceries at the store.

Game 1

I invite intrepid readers to spend time reading the rules, and trying various options on the website to find where exactly the free method of entering the sweepstakes has been hidden and to report in the comments what steps you had to go through to get there. There is an answer and believe it or not, you have not seen the most obnoxious part yet!

In our view, the free means of entry that Albertsons Companies has created is illusory because of the complicated series of hoops they created for nonpurchasers to follow that most people will likely abandon. In essence, the alternative means of entry has failed of its essential purpose. And if that is the case, a consumer-sympathetic judge might deem the Albertsons promotion to be an illegal lottery.

Why would any company make it so difficult for their customers (and noncustomers) to participate in this game? Then it dawned on me. What if it was in their financial interest to make it harder? A scan of the official rules provided a possible answer.

*MOUSE PRINT:

unclaimed prizes

Of the over $6.6-million in prizes being offered, only $1.25-million-worth are prizes over $25 for shoppers. That means as much as $5-million of the smaller prizes if they go unclaimed never have to be given away. Obviously, we don’t know the company’s motivation in designing the sweepstakes as they did.

We posed some very pointed questions in multiple inquiries to the Albertsons Companies’ PR folks, including whether they consumer-tested the no-purchase-necessary-method of entry to see if average humans could follow their instructions. They did not respond.

This promotion cries out for action by the FTC and the consumer bar.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Wanna Bet These Ads Are Misleading?

More and more states are allowing betting on sporting events, and that has resulted in a huge increase in advertising promotions by betting site operators. And nothing attracts gamblers more than offers of free money.

But some of these ads can be misleading and that has led to a series of class action lawsuits against Caesars Sportsbook for ads like this:

Caesars Sportsbook $1250 offer

The lawsuit contends:

… if a new user places a $1,000 “risk-free” or “free” first bet at Caesars Sportsbook, that person is required to deposit and wager $1,000 in real dollars with the website. If the bet is successful, the winnings are paid out as usual. If the bet loses, however, the customer is credited with the amount lost, not in cash, but in bet credits that can only be used on the Caesars Sportsbook and that expire in just 14 days.

So basically an offer like this only replaces the money you lose with their own funny money but doesn’t allow you to withdraw it. That is not clearly explained in the ads and thus forms the basis for these lawsuits.

One Ohio state gambling official explained the issue this way:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“If something is claiming to be free or risk-free, then it has to absolutely not require the patron to incur any loss or risk their own money,” Matthew Schuler, executive director of Ohio’s Casino Control Commission, said in a recent interview. “Disclosing the risks within the terms and conditions isn’t good enough,” he added.

The parent company of Caesars Sportsbook a couple of weeks ago asked a judge to either dismiss one of the cases or require the plaintiff to go to arbitration as the terms and conditions provided when she signed up for the promotion. The judge has not ruled on that motion yet.

The misleading nature of these promotions is not limited to Caesars. Here is a promotion from FanDuel, another sportsbook, with Rob Gronkowski promising that new customers will “get up to $3,000 back if they don’t win their first bet.”


At the end of the commercial the announcer repeats that customers will “get up to $3,000 back if you don’t win your first bet.”

*MOUSE PRINT:

The unspoken part of the claim is that the money back is in the form of “bonus bets” — merchandise credit, if you will, that cannot be withdrawn. It must be used in 14 days. All that is only stated onscreen, and not all in readable-size type.

But it gets worse. Let’s say you’ve earned $100 in bonus bets and you bet that whole $100 on a sporting event. Lucky you, your bet wins $150. When you go to withdrawn your $150, you may discover that all you really won is $50 because they substract the value of the wager you made using the house’s money. [We confirmed this with a FanDuel spokesperson.]

*MOUSE PRINT:

*After your bet settles (and if it wins), you’ll get to pocket all of the winnings but the initial bonus bet portion of your wager will not be returned to your wallet.” -FanDuel website

As with everything else we spotlight in Mouse Print*, you’ve always got to read the fine print.

Note: Comments submitted Wednesday and afterwards will be delayed in posting.