Retail

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Are Stihl’s Tools All “Made in America?”

Products that carry the “Made in USA” slogan have a distinct marketing advantage, particularly among a big segment of the population that believes in buying American-made products. So it is no wonder that many companies like to wrap themselves in the flag as part of their sales strategy.

A regular reader, David B., recently brought this commercial to our attention from Stihl, a leading maker of portable outdoor power tools.

Did you catch that virtually unreadable fine print footnote on the screen for three seconds at the end of commercial?

*MOUSE PRINT:

Stihl Made in America

“A majority of Stihl products are made in America of U.S. and foreign made materials.”

That statement probably doesn’t square with the net impression that the commercial conveys to the average viewer. The orally unqualified “Made in America” claim drowns out the tiny disclaimer that most people probably couldn’t read. Taken literally, the fine print could mean that as few as 51% of their products are actually made in the USA.

In the last year, the Federal Trade Commission has gotten more active in investigating “made in USA” claims, publicizing its advertising guidelines, issuing a new “Made in USA” labeling rule, and settling a number of cases. Key in these settlements is the requirement that the company must not make any representation, expressly or by implication, that a product or service is “Made in the United States” unless:

A. … all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States; or

B. A Clear and Conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, and/or processing; …

In our opinion, Stihl’s fine print limitation on their “Made in America” claim is not clear and conspicuous and could subject them to FTC scrutiny. We asked the company about that, what percentage of their products are made here, what percentage contain foreign parts, and whether the company plans to modify their advertisement. The company responded in relevant part:

Over 75% of STIHL outdoor power equipment sold in the United States is manufactured in the United States in our Virginia Beach facility of foreign and domestic components.
…
STIHL Inc. firmly believes that its advertising of the significant manufacturing processes occurring in Virginia Beach is in line with FTC guidance. STIHL Inc. does not make an unqualified “Made in America” claim, and consistently and clearly disclaims that qualifying equipment is made of U.S. and foreign components. The specific disclaimer at issue is clearly visible on the screen the entire time the “made in America” claim is being made (spoken or written), and is sufficient to qualify the claim, per FTC guidelines.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Burger King Sued for Exaggerating Portion Sizes

Fast food companies have a knack for making their burgers and chicken sandwiches look much larger than they really are.

Now a new class action lawsuit has been filed against Burger King alleging that certain of their burgers are depicted in advertising as much larger than they actually are.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Whoppers
Big King

The complaint goes on to allege:

A side-by-side comparison of Burger King’s former Whopper advertisement to the current Whopper advertisement shows that the burger increased in size by approximately 35% and the amount of beef increased by more than 100%.

Whoppers

The court is being asked to require Burger King to pay damages to all affected consumers, and to stop misrepresenting the size of their sandwiches in advertising and on menu boards.

It is about time that restaurants are called on the carpet for exaggerating their portion sizes.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Target Fined $5-Mil for CA Pricing Violations

Earlier this month, district attorneys from seven California counties reached a court settlement with Target for over $5-million after they sued the chain for allegedly charging shoppers more than the advertised price on some items.

In addition to the run-of-the-mill pricing violations like leaving old sale signs up and then charging customers the full price at the checkout, the DAs alleged something very unusual in their complaint:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“..advertising, posting, marking or quoting a price for a commodity on Target.com or via the Target mobile application (“Target app”) when deployed by a consumer outside the perimeter of the store [such as at home] and then advertising, posting, marking or quoting a different price for that commodity on Target.com or via the Target App when deployed in-store by the same consumer…

..advertising, posting, marking or quoting a price for a commodity on Target.com or via the Target App that is simultaneously available for purchase in a store at a different price without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the sales channel — online or in-store — at which the commodity may be obtained at the stated price.”

With respect to this latter point, Target was apparently not making clear on the Internet whether the price it was showing for specific items was the online price, the in-store price, or was valid for both.

The other issue is a bit trickier to explain. The DAs alleged that Target used technology called “geofencing” to send a different set of prices on some items to consumers’ cellphones when they were close to or in the store compared to the prices displayed when at home. In some cases, a consumer who saw, say, a vacuum cleaner on sale for $99.99 in the Target app or on their website at home, may have discovered when visiting the store to actually look at the item that the price had changed in the app/website to reflect a higher in-store price of $109.99.

Target out-inHypothetical Example

In the settlement with the California DAs, Target is required to maintain an elaborate price verification and audit program checking hundreds of prices weekly. It has to correct the inconsistencies it finds in those price checks and also when customers bring a discrepancy to the attention of store personnel.

Target is also being required to clearly disclose on its website and app specifically where the advertised price shown is valid (in-store, online, or both). And with respect to displaying a different set of prices to customers who enter the store, the settlement says:

“Target will not use Geofencing in conjunction with the Target App or Target.com such that the price of any product advertised as available when purchased online on the Target App or Target.com either (1) increases or (2) switches to a price advertised as available when purchased at a store based solely on the geographic location of the user.”

Both the Sonoma County DA’s office and the one in San Diego County declined to provide further clarification of this and other issues.

But, three cheers for the DAs of California and the weights and measures departments in those counties who continue to watch out for shoppers on these types of pocketbook consumer issues when many state attorneys general ignore them.

Incidentally, back in 2019, the NBC affiliate in Minneapolis (Target’s hometown), conducted an investigation demonstrating how Target sometimes charges a higher price in-store than it does online. Don’t get confused by the story’s reference to a lower “parking lot price.” It is the same price you would see at Target.com using your computer or cellphone at home.

After that segment aired, Target said it would make clear whether a price shown on your phone was an in-store price or an online price.

See also: Our recent story of how prices can vary significantly from one Target location to another.