mouseprint: fine print of advertising
Go to Homepage


Subscribe to free weekly newsletter

Mouse Print*
is a service of
Consumer World
Follow us both on Twitter:
@consumerworld



Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

July 20, 2020

Thanks for Nothing – Summer 2020

Filed under: Humor,Retail,Thanks for Nothing — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:33 am

Periodically we share offers from sellers that just make you scratch your head or chuckle because of the contradictions in the advertising or surprises in the fine print.

Example #1

In an online promotion, Macy’s promised to take $11.99 off a box of a particular brand of chocolates when you made any purchase. But, when reader William-Andrew went to check out, the system did not take off the full $11.99.

*MOUSE PRINT:

$11.99 off

The Macy’s online call center refused to fix the overcharge, but once stores reopened, the manager there gladly gave our consumer back the difference. Thanks for nothing (at least online), Macy’s.


 

Example #2

While we’re dumping on Macy’s, reader Gay R. sent in a coupon that promised a generous 25% off for their credit card holders. The back of the coupon, however, noted a list of exclusions in miniscule type that seemingly left little the coupon could be used for.

*MOUSE PRINT:

coupon exclusions


 

Example #3

Joe W. says he visited the Sears in Danbury, CT and had to send in a picture of a “blowout” deal he saw on some tools while getting his car repaired.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Sears Blowout

He said “at least they were brutally honest.” Thanks for nothing, Sears.


 

Example #4

And CVS was offering the same amount of savings on these masks that only looked like they were on sale.

*MOUSE PRINT:

CVS masks

Thanks for nothing, CVS.


 

Example #5

If you didn’t look carefully, you might have thought it was your lucky day to find a genuine bargain on parking downtown.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Parking $4
Credit:Reddit


 

If you find a funny or oddball offer that could be spotlighted here, please submit a copy to us.




• • •

July 13, 2020

Don’t Let a Product’s Name Fool You!

Filed under: Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:15 am

MrConsumer has a toenail problem. Like many people, his toenails have turned brittle, irregular and off-color. He has toenail fungus. Years ago, his doctor said there was a pill for that, but it seemed strange to treat this condition from the inside out (and various articles suggest it is not always effective and takes a long time to work, if at all).

Recently, the most popular over-the-counter ointment brand, Fungi-Nail, ran this TV commercial touting the product.

Seems pretty unambiguous — “Maximum strength Fungi-Nail is so powerful, it cures and prevents fungal infections… Say goodbye to toe fungus with Fungi-Nail.”

But, on the back of the carton, there is a most unexpected disclosure.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Fungi-Nail back

Say what? This product is not for nail fungus? Then why is the product called “Fungi-Nail?” You have to check the FAQ section of the website for that answer.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Fungi-Nail FAQ

So, the name has nothing to do with the function of the product. Nice. And that point is also made at the end of the section on toe fungus on their website:

If you think you have nail fungus, contact your doctor.

So what’s Fungi-Nail good for? Athlete’s foot!




• • •

July 6, 2020

Midas Hides a Lot of Stuff in the Fine Print

Filed under: Autos,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:20 am

MrConsumer had his oil changed recently at Midas using a prepaid Groupon making it quite a deal at $13.60 all-inclusive. As part of the check-in process there, the clerk provides a standard printout showing the price of the oil change but that my total would be zero because of the Groupon. I signed the form.

When arriving home, I looked at my copy of the receipt and was astonished to discover that those clever guys opted me into receiving promotional text messages. Or more accurately, I unwittingly opted into their advertising and service messages because of the following statement printed on that work order.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Midas consent

Under federal law, a business cannot send unsolicited text messages even to existing customers. They have to first obtain “express written consent.” Did this qualify? The words were not buried because they were at the top of the list in a type size the same as all the other information. But do most customers realize that Midas tucked this unexpected language on a car repair order rather than on a separate consent form. My guess is not.

But MrConsumer had the last laugh because he provided them with his landline phone number.

For customers who were not lucky enough to get the Groupon price, there was a simultaneous Fourth of July promotion for only $17.76.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Midas fine print

Goodness only knows how much these poor people wound up paying when you add on taxes, disposal fee, and a shop fee “not to exceed $35.”




• • •

June 29, 2020

Haagen-Dazs Allegedly Cuts Corners With Milk Chocolate

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:39 am

Haagen-Dazs is one of the premier brands of ice cream, so it is surprising to hear of a lawsuit alleging that the company is cutting corners on the milk chocolate it uses to coat its ice cream bars.

Haagen-Dazs bars

According to the complaint, the company mixes in coconut oil to the milk chocolate.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Haagen-Dazs ingredients

And under federal regulations, if milk chocolate has an optional ingredient in it like vegetable oil, then it must be labeled as “milk chocolate and vegetable fat coating” or “milk chocolate and ___ oil coating.”

The problem is that Haagen-Dazs doesn’t do that on the principal display panel, but only in the fine print ingredients statement.

As such, the lawsuit contends that consumers are misled, they wouldn’t have paid as much for the product, or would not have purchased it all.

For its part, Froneri, US Inc., the maker of these chocolate bars, said “The labels on our Häagen-Dazs ice cream bar products accurately describe the products, comply with FDA regulations, and provide consumers with the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.”

Companies have to use an emulsifying agent like coconut oil to more easily coat the ice cream in a hard chocolate layer.

We’ll let you know how the case turns out.

Hat tip to Truth in Advertising for the case.




• • •

June 8, 2020

Where’s the Honey in Honey Bunches of Oats?

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:43 am

Honey Bunches of OatsFor years, we’ve all seen the commercials for Post’s Honey Bunches of Oats cereal where the female assembly line worker waxes poetic about her crispy crunchy bunches.

Last year, a health-conscious California consumer bought a box of this cereal thinking that honey would be a more healthy sweetener to have rather than sugar or corn syrup. Soon thereafter he learned (probably from a class action lawyer rather than a nutritionist) that the product in fact had almost no honey.

A check of the ingredients statement on the side of the package revealed the not-so-sweet truth.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Honey Bunches of Oats Ingredients

There are three other sweeteners in the product — sugar, corn syrup and molasses — all of which are in greater amounts than any honey. In fact, there was more salt in the cereal than honey. (Barley malt extract is also a sweetener, incidentally.)

So our consumer sued Post claiming false advertising and misrepresentation. He believed the packaging conveyed the impression that honey was either the only sweetener or certainly a significant one in the product.

Post argued among other things that no reasonable consumer would understand that the cereal’s packaging was making a claim about the amount of honey in the product. MrConsumer always loves when a company tries to assert that only stupid consumers would believe the baloney the manufacturer shows and tells them right on the package.

The company asked the judge to dismiss the case, but she sided with the consumer in her procedural decision.

In applying the reasonable consumer standard, however, the packaging must be considered in context. That is, the image of a radiating sun, the words “HONEY BUNCHES OF OATS,” and the honey dipper dripping honey occupy about two-thirds of the front of the packaging. Although the package does not make any objective representations about the amount of honey in the cereal, a reasonable consumer could see the prominent honey-related words and imagery and be deceived into thinking the cereal contained relatively less refined sugar and more honey. If so misled, the reasonable consumer is not expected to pick up the product and examine the fine print of the ingredient list. –Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, U.S. District Court

And so the case moves forward. We’ll keep you “Posted,” so to speak.




• • •
Next Page »
Powered by: WordPressPrivacy Policy
Mouse Print exposes the strings and catches buried in the fine print of advertising.
Copyright © 2006-2020. All rights reserved. Advertisements are copyrighted by their respective owners.