Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Aldi Grocery Giveaway Backfires Leaving Thousands Fuming

Aldi Blind BoxLast week, Aldi ran a sweepstakes called Aldi Blind Box promising to give away mystery boxes of groceries each day for four days at exactly the stroke of noon. It sounded like such a good deal that we promoted it as a “Bargain of the Week” in Consumer World.

At the appointed hour last Monday, MrConsumer along with perhaps thousands of others watched the Aldi clock tick down to zero so we could try to get a box of goodies. After clicking the “claim a box” button, your online cart showed that a box was added to it. Then you had to click a “check out” button and prove you were a human by solving THREE CAPTCHAS, and then later another set of CAPTCHAS. At that point you are told you are in line to check out and for me it said the estimated wait time was 45 minutes.

After patiently waiting three-quarters of an hour, a message popped up saying they were all sold out!

Sold Out

Say what?

Soon after Monday’s giveaway we received a complaint from a regular reader who experienced the exact same thing. She commented, “I wasted 42 minutes believing that Aldi was going to honor my place in line.” Some other people said they got as far as entering their shipping information but then received a “sold out” message.

Immediately, we wrote to Aldi’s PR people complaining about the misleading nature of the promotion because it gave entrants the impression that a free box was in their cart and that they were just waiting in line to check out. We asked many pointed questions including how they were going to make good for the thousands of customers they disappointed. They only answered that question as noted below.

In addition, it appears that Aldi may have violated state and federal sweepstakes laws that require disclosing “official rules” of giveaways like this. A review of the Internet Archive reveals that they did not make this disclosure prior to the Monday drawing, but did so in time for the ones after that.

A glutton for punishment, MrConsumer returned on day two of the promotion where the process remained the same except the wait time was reduced to just four minutes seemingly. However, when the four minutes elapsed, the wait time reset to 30 minutes, followed by the inevitable “sold out” message! The video below shows the process in actual time.

By day three of the promotion, the company finally decided to explain to participants how the promotion worked in detail. Duh.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Aldi Blind Box explanation

This promotion has resulted in a deluge of complaints and comments being posted online — over 10,000 on Aldi’s Instagram alone — and rightfully so. [Account needed to read Instagram.]

Part of the problem was that despite having 2,684 stores in the United States, Aldi only made available 84 – 92 boxes a day (without disclosing that to participants initially), and chose an entry system that inconvenienced and misled their customers. They should pay a price for that, both monetarily and legally.

After the fourth and final day of the planned giveaway, Aldi announced a make good of sorts — an unscheduled fifth day of mystery box giveaways, wherein the company would offer 5,000 free boxes but still using the same cockamamie system.

In making the announcement, Aldi said they were doing it “because when the fans get loud, ALDI responds with an encore.” Get loud? They really meant “complain.”

How did the 5,000 box giveaway turn out? No different. Despite entering the site before noon, clicking the “claim a box” button as soon as it appeared adding the mystery box to my cart, the countdown clock to check out said 4 minutes. After hitting zero, it reset to 22 minutes. And after hitting zero again it reset to 17 minutes. And after hitting zero again it reset to 12 minutes. And when it hit zero for a fourth time (a total of 55 minutes waiting in queue), here’s what MrConsumer (and others) saw:

Aldi sold out message

As one poster said on Instagram after Friday’s make-good farce:

Today’s was the biggest joke of them all… Never again… I have wasted 2-1/2 hours on this.

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.

Is Hershey Running an Illegal Sweepstakes?

A longtime Consumer World reader, Alex from Virginia, wrote to us recently about a sweepstakes being run by The Hershey Company for Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups.

He got a package like the one below from his local Dollar General store offering a chance at winning $25,000.

Reese's Win $25,000 package

The front of it said, “You could WIN $25,000. See details inside.”

The law of most states says that paying a price (“consideration”) for the chance to win a prize is a lottery, and usually only the state and charities are allowed to conduct them. (This is also the definition of “gambling” in Pennsylvania, where The Hershey Company is headquartered.)

The FTC recently reiterated that companies can’t charge a price to enter a sweepstakes when describing their $18.5 million case settlement with Publishers Clearing House:

Real sweepstakes are free and by chance. It’s illegal to ask you to pay or buy something to enter.

But companies always have promotions telling shoppers if you buy their product you have a chance to win a prize. So how do they get away it?

To prevent any promotion by a company being deemed a lottery or gambling, it must disclose a “no purchase necessary” means of playing the game, such as by sending in a postcard with your name and address. That is called the alternate means of entry (AMOE).

Being a savvy shopper, our consumer knew this so he scrutinized the outside of the package looking for the required information on how to enter the sweepstakes without having to make a purchase. There was nothing on the front, the back, the sides, or even under the flap. But after the candy was purchased, he got a big surprise when opening the package.

*MOUSE PRINT:

There, INSIDE the package, they disclosed how to enter the sweepstakes without having to make a purchase and provided a website with more information! Hello?

disclosure inside the package

And just in case you were thinking maybe Hershey put these Reese’s packages in a special display in stores, and that display disclosed the free way to enter the sweepstakes along with the URL of their special website, that was not the case at least where MrConsumer found the bars in the regular candy display at the checkout at his local Walgreens in Massachusetts. Likewise that’s where a California shopper also found them. A Washington state shopper found them without special signage along with other candy at a Safeway checkout, and our Virginia consumer found them in this display at Dollar General:

Reese's display at Dollar General

So is this promotion legal? We consulted with one of the country’s leading sweepstakes law experts who said in a statement in part:

My opinion on this promotion is that it does violate the lottery laws. The need for clear and conspicuous disclosure [of the AMOE] is particularly important for an on-pack sweepstakes … [and] should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed on the outside of the package.

What does Hershey have to say for itself? We contacted their PR representative three times asking for comment and an explanation, but we received no reply.

However, the company issued a statement to the Associated Press, and the reporter incorporated their position into her story:

Hershey Co., that Pennsylvania candymaker that owns the Reese’s brand, said late Monday that its website contains full details of the promotion. It also said some packages have QR codes that link consumers to more information.

“As with all of our promotions, we place great care and diligence to ensure they are compliant with all regulations,” Hershey said in a statement.

The company also said in-store displays showed abbreviated rules for the sweepstakes, including how to enter without making a purchase. But Dworsky said a spot check of candy displays in multiple states, including California, Virginia and Washington, found no such signs.

Packages purchased by an Associated Press reporter at a Michigan drugstore didn’t contain QR codes, and the store had no signage explaining the promotion.

We’ll only reiterate that the obligation is on the company to disclose to consumers the way to find the free method to enter the sweepstakes, not for buyers to have to go hunting to find it or to have to buy the product.

This case is particularly troubling because children and young people are candy buyers and could well be attracted to the cartoon character on the package, the school theme, and the idea of winning money. Not knowing the law, they or other impulse purchasers might buy this candy needlessly or repeatedly when they didn’t have to.

We also discovered that the company ran the exact same promotion from January through April this year with the same packaging. The problem is that some of those older packages are still for sale indistinguishably intermingled with the new ones but the sweepstakes offer and code inside expired months ago.

For all the foregoing reasons, we urge Hershey to recall all specially-marked packages of Reese’s with the $25,000 offer.

In addition, we have turned over this case to the Federal Trade Commission, the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office, and some other law enforcement entities for their review.

Perhaps it’s time for Reese’s to change their slogan from not sorry to sorry.

Please add your opinion in the comments section.