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

Shoppers Sue Retailers Over Sneaky Practices – Part 3

We wrap up our series of stories where retail shoppers are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. This time, a Massachusetts shopper is suing Stop & Shop supermarket over their store brand of flushable wipes.

Stop & Shop Flushable Wipes

The consumer contends in his lawsuit that flushable wipes he bought are not actually flushable.

*MOUSE PRINT:

…reasonable consumers expect that “flushable wipe” products will disperse in a short amount of time after flushing and therefore will not clog or cause other operational problems in household sewage lines, septic systems, and other standard wastewater equipment. To be suitable for flushing, any “flushable” product must be able to quickly disintegrate into small pieces such that it can pass through sewer systems without issue.

4. Contrary to Defendant’s representations, the Wipes are not, in fact, flushable. The Wipes do not break apart or disperse after flushing.

Neither the consumer nor his attorney presents any evidence that the Stop & Shop brand of flushable wipes were tested by them and were shown not to disintegrate quickly. They offered studies of other brands that demonstrated the likelihood they would clog drain lines. This Consumer Reports video from almost 10 years ago showed how some brands could likely clog toilets but others would not.

In addition, the consumer claims that the packaging of these wipes cleverly partially covers the warning of when these wipes should not be flushed. You have to unfold the white flap on the bottom on the package to see the entire small print disclosure.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Stop & Shop wipes warning

We’ll have to see if the consumer’s case holds up in court or disintegrates.

Share this story:

 


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

Shoppers Sue Retailers Over Sneaky Practices – Part 2

Last week, we reviewed a case brought against Safeway for allegedly deceptive buy one, get one free offers. This week we examine a class action lawsuit claiming that Best Buy changed its price matching policy midway through one consumer’s claim.

Apple iPad ProThis past February 4, a New York consumer with knowledge of Best Buy’s price matching policy, spotted an Apple iPad Pro for a great price ($555.99) at TigerDirect.com. But he wanted to buy it locally from Best Buy online where it was twice the price ($1099.99). He contacted Best Buy and was told to buy it online at the full price and then upon verification, they would credit back the difference under their price matching policy.

It was such a good deal, this consumer decided to buy another one online at Best Buy. He then traveled to his local store to pick them up. Tempted by the tremendous savings, he told the local store he would like to buy a third one too while he was there.

According to the complaint, the store refused to price match the third notebook as well as the first two. And other Best Buy stores he visited similarly refused.

At the time of his purchase, TigerDirect.com was one of the specifically enumerated online competitors that it would price match:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Stores Best Buy price matchesJanuary 2023 screenshot

*MOUSE PRINT:

And then, magically on February 6, 2023, Best Buy changed its price match guarantee on its website. What online retailer is now missing from the list? You guessed it, TigerDirect.

Best Buy Price Match Guarantee Feb. 23

We don’t know if Best Buy has a reasonable explanation for their actions in denying the refunds to this consumer, but there probably is another side to this story.

Feel free to comment about your experience with price guarantees in the comments.

Next week we conclude our three-part series with one consumer suing a big supermarket chain for selling flushable wipes that really aren’t flushable.

Share this story:

 


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

Shoppers Sue Retailers Over Sneaky Practices – Part 1

They’re mad as hell and not going take it anymore. That seems to be the case these days when shoppers have had enough of retailers’ broken promises. Over the next three weeks, we will examine three recently filed class action lawsuits again some big name chains. First up — Safeway.

Safeway

Everyone loves buy one, get one free (BOGO) offers when they are legitimate. But one Washington state consumer says Safeway is not playing fair because she alleges the supermarket chain raises the price on items that are offered as BOGO specials.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In her complaint, the consumer claims:

Contrary to the language of Defendants’ free product offers, the BOGO products are not actually free. Instead, Defendants increase the price of the first unit of the product to cover the cost of the second purportedly “free” unit of the product.

Throughout the class period Defendants routinely increased the regular retail price of items when offering them in BOGO sales. For example, during the class period, Safeway sold boneless, skinless chicken breasts to Club Card members for $2.99 per pound. Within the same month, Safeway sold seasoned boneless, skinless chicken breasts for $5.99 per pound in a Buy 1, Get 1 Free promotion. Thus, Club Card consumers overpaid by $3.00 per pound for any BOGO chicken purchase.

Safeway chicken breasts

Other examples in the lawsuit don’t give clear-cut examples demonstrating that the one purchased item had doubled in price to make up the cost of the free item.

And worse for the consumer and her lawyer, they may not understand the variability of retail pricing. Stores sell goods at a variety of different prices. In the case of the chicken breasts above, for example, it is unlikely that $2.99 was the regular price of that item. It perhaps was on sale for $2.99 a pound one particular week. So to suggest that whenever Safeway runs a BOGO sale on chicken breasts it should have been $2.99 for the first package and the second free is just plain wrong.

Regular prices have to be bona fide. Generally speaking, products must be offered at full regular price for a substantial period of time and then they can be periodically discounted. In the case of buy one, get one free offers, under Federal Trade Commission rules, retailers cannot jack-up the price of the purchased item beyond its regular price.

So, if the court finds that Safeway only charges $5.99 a pound for chicken breasts when offered on a BOGO basis, then the consumer has a great case. But if it really charges $5.99 a pound “regularly” when not on sale, but occasionally has a sale for $2.99 a pound, the case may fail.

Of note, however, is a case that Safeway and Albertsons have recently agreed to settle for $107-million after similar allegations were made about buy one, get one free meat sales in Oregon. A similar suit complaining about Safeway’s BOGO practices was also filed in California in June.

Next week, we’ll examine a complaint filed against Best Buy for not honoring its price guarantee.

Share this story:

 


ADV