Retail

Consumer World Celebrates 30 Years: 1995 - 2025  
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?

Consumer World Celebrates 30 Years: 1995 - 2025  
Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Skimpflation Hits Imperial Margarine

We told you a couple of years ago how Conagra inconspicuously reformulated Smart Balance margarine by reducing its fat content from 64% to 39%.

Now comes the Flora Food Group (formerly Upfield), the maker of Imperial margarine, tinkering with the recipe for its product.

When it was advertised in the ’70s, Imperial had 80% vegetable oil, tasted like butter they said, and made you “feel like a king.”

Boy how times have changed. (For purposes of this story, we will still refer to the product as “margarine” although it no longer meets the legal definition since it has less than 80% fat.)

*MOUSE PRINT:

Imperial margarine

The most recent previous version had 53% vegetable oil. Clearly there had to have been many interim versions to get from 80% down to just 53%. Now, the current version has only 48%. And the calories dropped from 70 per tablespoon down to 60.

How did they accomplish this? Like Smart Balance, they literally watered down the product. Looking at the nutrition label reveals the change.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Imperial nutrition label

In the previous version of Imperial, vegetable oil was the primary ingredient. In the current version, water predominates. But strangely, the fat content remains seven grams per serving. How is that possible?

We asked Flora for an explanation. All a company spokesperson would say is:

Regarding the nutritional information on the label, the serving size and nutritional values are determined through detailed analytical testing in accordance with FDA guidelines. While the overall fat content of the product has been adjusted, the fat content per serving is declared accurately in accordance with FDA guidelines.

Perhaps it is a rounding issue on the number of grams of fat. Who knows?

Consumer World Celebrates 30 Years: 1995 - 2025  
Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

CT Bill Would Require Shrinkflation Notices for Products

shrinkflationA bill to regulate shrinking products was recently filed by the Connecticut Attorney General. It is one of the first of its kind pieces of state legislation in the United States. (Some other countries have laws requiring disclosure when a product is downsized.)

The proposed law in Connecticut does not ban shrinkflation, but is a disclosure law requiring notice to shoppers if a product now contains less than it did but the price has not dropped proportionately.

In particular, it says in abbreviated form:

*MOUSE PRINT:

(Effective July 1, 2025) (a) No vendor shall downsize, or reduce the quantity, amount, weight or size of, any consumer product, unless such vendor: (1) Reduces the price charged for such consumer product by an amount that is commensurate with such downsizing or reduction; or (2) Clearly and conspicuously discloses that such vendor has made such downsizing or reduction during the twelve-month period beginning on the date on which (A) the downsized consumer product is first sold, or (B) the consumer product is first sold in such reduced quantity, amount, weight or size.

That last part is not clear, but what is certain is that the “vendor” has to clearly disclose that the product has been downsized. Missing are details like what form the notice has to take, where it has to be displayed (like on the package or shelf), and what specifically has to be told to the consumer other than the fact that the product now contains less. Presumably regulations by the attorney general’s office will have to be promulgated, and I would advocate that they should require a statement that includes the old size or the percentage reduction in size.

Who is responsible for the disclosure? According to the bill, the “vendor” is. “Vendor” is defined as including the distributor, manufacturer, retailer, supplier or wholesaler. So both the manufacturer and retailer would have responsibility for making the required disclosure.

Good luck getting this bill passed, Connecticut. Expect huge opposition from the businesses affected.