Internet

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Is the Pope Leo Trading Card Offer an Illegal Lottery?

Before the ink was even dry on the proclamation of the new pope, commercialization efforts began.

Right out of the gate, Topps, the trading card company, began offering Pope Leo XIV commemorative cards. They come in two versions: the standard card and a very limited edition one with white smoke in the background. That version will only have 267 printed, each one individually numbered, like works of art.

Pope Leo cards

Topps was taking orders on its website between May 8 and 11 only and charging $8.99 per card, with quantity discounts available. Within two weeks, the company promised to mail out the cards.

In addition, depending on how many cards Topps sells in total, the company will also print several dozen so-called “parallels” or “chase” cards — very fancy foil versions of various rarities and seed them randomly across all the orders. All purchasers will have a chance of getting one of these very rare cards instead of the standard “base” card.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Pope card parallels

The question arises, however, does this promotion constitute an illegal lottery? Lotteries are defined by state law. “Paying a price for the chance of a prize” is the typical definition.

For example, if Quaker Oats was to advertise that they have hidden a diamond ring in one of every ten thousand boxes of their oatmeal, they would violate state gambling laws. But consumer products companies can legally comply with the law by transforming the promotion into a sweepstakes. To do that, they eliminate the “price” element by offering a no-purchase-necessary means of allowing anyone the chance to win. Typically that is accomplished by asking consumers to send in a three-by-five card with their name and address.

In this case, however, Topps does not offer the public a free chance of receiving one of the theoretically more valuable limited-edition cards.

We asked the company’s PR representative to comment on this issue, and checked with two legal experts who specialize in lottery law. We only heard back from one expert who has sued companies for conducting illegal lotteries. He said, in part…

…more research is needed but “the question now is what consideration are the purchasers of the ‘pope card’ giving for the chance to get [one of the special] cards. This whole scheme by Topps just doesn’t pass the smell test.” –Bill Pannell

There apparently is a history of mostly failed legal attempts to hold trading card companies liable for gambling (see page 406) when they sell card packets some of which randomly contain more valuable cards.

What do you think? Does Topps cross the line by enticing the purchase of these pope cards because there is a chance the buyer will luck out and get one of the rare and potentially more valuable ones?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Amazon Sued for Reneging on Some Instant Refunds

Rather than make customers wait until returned merchandise is actually received by them, Amazon has a policy of sometimes issuing instant refunds as soon as a shopper returns the product at a dropoff location like at Kohl’s, Staples, UPS, or Whole Foods.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Amazon advance returns

Of course, they reserve the right to reverse an instant refund that they issued if they never actually receive the returned items.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Amazon can recharge for returns not received

Back in 2023, Amazon was sued by a group of consumers from various states alleging that they properly brought goods to an authorized Amazon return location, got an instant refund, but then weeks and weeks later got emails claiming the goods had not actually been received by Amazon. As a result, their accounts were charged for the goods again.

In all these cases, when these consumers contacted customer service at Amazon, they acknowledged that their purchases had in fact been received, and were promised a credit and given an apology. None of them received a straight answer of how such mistakes can happen.

So Amazon is being sued in a class action for breach of contract, unfair or deceptive practices and unjust enrichment.

Just last week, a federal ruled against Amazon’s motion to dismiss, and said the case can proceed.

“Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Amazon stole money directly from their bank accounts and continues to possess it unlawfully,” said Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

San Diego Fights Back Against Digital Coupons

Vons Digital CouponLast week, the San Diego city council passed an ordinance to require stores that advertise digital-only deals to also provide paper versions of those coupons so anyone without digital access or know how can still benefit from the savings.

This is believed to be the first government action to fight digital discrimination in retailing and become law. As readers of Consumer World and Mouse Print* know, consumer advocates have been urging stores to offer easy, offline alternatives to digital coupons so that the many digitally-deprived seniors and lower income folks who have been shut out of these deals can have equal access. [See our series of stories.]

The bill, sponsored by city councilor Sean Elo-Rivera, is elegantly simple:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Any grocery store that offers digital discounts to consumers for the purchase of goods must make physical coupons for the digital price available to consumers upon request.

It also provides that stores post a sign alerting shoppers to this requirement.

Simplicity, sometimes, can have its own issues too. We pointed out to the city councilor that stores in San Diego like Vons and Albertsons offer 400 – 500 digital coupons each week via their apps and websites, and it would be cost prohibitive for stores to have to print a 40 or 50 page book each week with them. We suggested that the law only apply to those digital coupons and digital-only discounts that are advertised to shoppers in their weekly or periodic circulars. He agreed and said they would add clarifying language, but as the ordinance heads to the mayor for his signature, that has not been done yet.

Other states have been considering legislation that would require stores to offer shoppers other easy alternatives to digital coupons. New York and New Jersey in a particular have had bills in their legislature on the subject, but they have yet to pass. Additional states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Illinois also are considering similar proposed laws this year. (See update at Coupons in the News.)

And at the beginning of 2025, Stop & Shop, with over 350 supermarkets in the Northeast, rolled out digital coupon kiosks in all their stores so shoppers merely have to scan their loyalty card or enter their phone number and then all that week’s advertised digital coupons are automatically loaded on their account. [See our story.]

Kudos to San Diego for passing their ordinance which goes into effect this summer, and to the other states and stores working to make digital-only deals accessible to everyone.