Retail

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Publix Sued Over Manipulating Package Weights on Sale Items to Hide Overcharges

Publix was recently sued by a Florida consumer alleging that the supermarket chain was systematically overcharging consumers on various products sold by weight such as meat department purchases.

For example, in January 2025, the consumer saw that pork tenderloins were on sale for $4.99 a pound instead of the regular $6.99.

Publix pork from lawsuit

The package she bought was marked with the full price of $6.99 pound, totaling $17.61 for 2.52 lbs. of pork. At the self-checkout, the consumer is shown the sale price of $4.99 a pound, but the weight of the pork has been pumped up by just over a pound, and she is charged $17.61 just as the package is marked — an overcharge of about $5.04.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Publix pork checked out

Irrespective of the finagling of the net weight of the product on the checkout screen, one would hope that most shoppers would recognize that the advertised sale price of this item was not on the package, and therefore she better be sure she is charged the lower sale price when paying. But she isn’t. She is charged the full regular price. Both the screen and sales receipt show that only the regular price was charged, while misleading the consumer into thinking that she saved $7.06.

Now, why does the company seemingly go to the trouble of inflating the net weight of the package on the checkout screen? It is not shown on the receipt and most consumers are not likely to catch the discrepancy between it and what is on the package anyway.

The lawsuit shows example after example just like this one where meat department and other random weight items are only price-marked with the regular price and not the advertised sale price. And for each of those items when purchased, the consumer was charged the full price and did not get the benefit of the sale price.

But, there is something about this case that simply does not make sense. Are all the examples of overcharges alleged in the complaint just the tip of the iceberg at Publix, or is there something about those particular packages that makes them the exception? For example, are most meat items on sale normally labeled with the sale price and thus ring up correctly at the checkout but these are the exceptions?

The Publix PR folks would not comment on the case, nor even answer that simple question. And the law firm that filed the case did not respond to our inquiry either.

So MrConsumer enlisted the help of the former director of the Massachusetts Division of Standards (our weights and measures department) who winters in Florida and lives not far from a Publix supermarket. I asked him to check sale items in the meat department to see if they are properly marked with the advertised sale price or are they like the pictures above from the lawsuit and only have the regular price on them. He confirmed they were all properly marked with the sale price per pound.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Correctly priced packageCorrectly priced sale items found recently by us

In addition, a friend in Florida went to her Publix, and found that the two meat items on sale last week were properly marked with the sale price on the label.

This suggests to me that if the Publix practice is to properly mark sale items with the sale price, then the examples in the lawsuit might have been handpicked deliberately as the few packages that somehow escaped being relabeled when they went on sale. That doesn’t excuse the overcharges on them but means the problem may not be as extensive as the lawsuit might lead some to believe.

What is also strikingly odd is the similarity that this case has to one settled last year against Walmart claiming the exact same thing. Is it possible that two completely independent companies have the same cockamamie checkout software that automatically fabricates the net weight of meat sold to mislead consumers into thinking they saved money?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Mattress Firm Sued for Deceptive Sales Practices

Last summer, a California consumer sued the big mattress chain, Mattress Firm, alleging the company inflated the so-called regular price of mattresses that it sold to give customers the sense that they were getting a better bargain than they really were. [We could not obtain a copy of the amended complaint filed last November.]

The consumer’s lawyer alleged that the company rarely if ever charges the stated crossed out price and therefore customers don’t save the amount of money the company claimed.

For example, this mattress was repeatedly advertised promising a savings of $1,200 because it was supposedly “60% off.”

Mattress Firm sample ad

As you can see, it was advertised month after month at the $799.99 price. When, if ever, was it $1999.99? The consumer’s lawyer contends:

*MOUSE PRINT:

… this reference price is a falsely inflated price because Defendant rarely, if ever, lists or sells items at the reference price. The only purpose of the reference price is to mislead customers into believing that the displayed reference price is a former or regular price at which Defendant usually lists and sells the item in the recent past. As a result, Defendant falsely conveys to customers that they are receiving a substantial markdown or discount.

In fact, Mattress Firm in its legal disclaimer, which is buried deep in its website, says that their strikethrough prices are not ones they have actually charged.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Compare at pricing is determined based on price of comparable merchandise of similar quality and circumstances. As a company, we stand behind our compare at prices, based on our market experience and knowledge. These prices reflect nationally competitive MSRP, list prices and do not reflect interim mark-downs, which may have been taken. We invite you to ask about any individual prices.

Since Mattress Firm’s strikethrough prices are unlabeled, shoppers might reasonably conclude that they are Mattress Firm’s own regular or former prices.

Under FTC rules, and the law of many states, including California, sellers have to offer goods at the undiscounted price for a reasonably substantial time in the recent regular course of business (often 90 days) before they subsequently discount them and compare the sale price to the reference price.

Why does the law require “regular” prices to be bonafide? Because consumers love a bargain and are greatly influenced by savings claims.

“By creating an impression of savings, the presence of a higher reference price enhances subjects’ perceived value and willingness to buy the product.” Thus, “empirical studies indicate that, as discount size increases, consumers’ perceptions of value and their willingness to buy the product increase…”

The consumer is suing Mattress Firm for fraud, misrepresentation, and unfair or deceptive business practices. She is seeking money damages and a court order enjoining the company from continuing these types of deceptive sales.

In late January, however, the plaintiff dismissed the case without explanation.

Mattress Firm is not the only bedding retailer being sued. Also in January 2025, two California consumers sued Sleep Number Corporation, making similar allegations. For example, the lawsuit says:

For example, anyone visiting Defendant’s store or Website on a given day who buys a Sleep Number i8 smart bed “on sale” for $2,999 based on a crossed-out reference price of $3,999 is being misled, because that bed has rarely, if ever, been sold in the recent past in Defendant’s stores, on the Website or through other retailers for $3,999. In other words, Defendant’s advertised “sales” for many of its beds are not really sales at all.

What is it about mattress sales that seem to bring out the worst in retailers’ making exaggerated savings claims?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Option-Packing Adds Needless Costs to Dell Computers

MrConsumer recently ordered a new Dell desktop computer since his old one was just over 10 years old. Even with discounts and waiting for a good sale, his new pc was still going to cost about a thousand dollars.

Dell lets you customize your computer to a degree by adding, upgrading, or removing certain components such as memory, SSDs, or the video card. They also state the increase or decrease in price as a result of any change.

On the same customization page at the end, Dell includes a section on software. Here, you can see that the computer comes with McAfee antivirus.

McAfee included

Only if you look at the detailed online invoice after you make your purchase, which is not emailed to you, do you see that you actually purchased McAfee.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Dell McAfee

McAfee wasn’t a freebie that Dell threw in with my purchase, they charged me $31.58 plus tax for a year’s subscription to it, that I neither asked for nor wanted. And in fact, I uninstalled it when the computer arrived as Windows 11 comes with Microsoft Defender built in.

My first request to Dell to get a $31.xx refund went unresponded to. My second request took Dell at least two weeks to process, but I just got a phone call saying they would make an exception and give me a $33.55 refund.

The internet is filled with complaints about Dell tacking on charges to computer purchases for what generally would be considered optional add-ons. I can’t believe some class action lawyer has not gone after the company for this practice that has apparently been going on for years.

We asked Dell to comment on their practice of forcing computer buyers into the purchase of McAfee. A spokesperson responded:

McAfee+ Premium protection is included in the price of that system and listed in the specifications on the webpage. We offer this to provide our customers with a security suite that helps protect their device, identity and privacy. It includes antivirus, identity monitoring, VPN and more. The invoice provides a more detailed price breakdown of the system, including all SKUs that make up the system. The invoice price will match the price listed on the webpage, ensuring that, prior to purchase, customers are informed of the total price they’ll pay for the specifications listed.

All that sidesteps the issue we raised that it should be the customer’s option to purchase or not purchase McAfee and the price should be disclosed before purchase. What do you think?