Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Advocates to Grocers: Stop Digital Discrimination of Unplugged Seniors

Updates on the digital-only deals issue can be found here.

A coalition of national consumer organizations is urging leading supermarket chains to stop discriminating against senior citizens and low income shoppers who cannot take advantage of a new wave of advertised in-store digital-only discounts because millions of them do not have internet access or smartphones.

Read about the issue in our original story.

In a letter to the presidents of a dozen large supermarket chains, the consumer groups (Consumer Action, Consumer Reports, Consumer World, National Consumers League, and PIRG) are urging them to help bridge the digital divide by adopting a workaround so unplugged shoppers are charged the same lower sale prices as connected customers are.

“It’s digital discrimination, and the most vulnerable people are being shut-out of these online discounts at the worst possible time given record high inflation,” explained Edgar Dworsky, founder of Consumer World. “Big supermarkets need to provide an offline alternative to the digitally-disconnected so they can reap the same savings that connected shoppers enjoy.”

In the past couple of years, more and more weekly specials advertised by some supermarkets for meat, fish, poultry, produce, and store brand items are so-called “digital-only deals” (see sample ads). They require shoppers to first go online to electronically “clip” the offers to add them to their loyalty card account to be charged the sale price in the store.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Sample supermarket FAQ about digital-only offers:

Q. Can I still take advantage of these coupons if I don’t have a smart phone or a computer?

A. These coupons are only available electronically. Manufacturers continue to offer paper coupons through local newspapers.

But, since 25-percent of seniors don’t use the internet and 39-percent don’t have smartphones according to a 2021 study by the Pew Research Center, they are effectively shut-out of these deals. Similarly, 43-percent of low income households lack broadband internet access.

Digital-only discounts can provide significant savings for connected shoppers. But an unplugged shopper, for example, could pay $9 more for this package of steak, or $15 more for a 15-pound Thanksgiving turkey because he or she cannot clip the required digital coupon.

Digital only items

Even on smaller purchases, the amount a digitally-disconnected shopper overpays can be significant. In the following examples, he or she is paying twice the price for this tub of store brand ice cream and 75-percent more for this carton of eggs.

ice cream and eggs

This week, stores across the country are offering digital-only sale items like these.

Not only are people without internet access shut-out of digital discounts, so are the one-in-four shoppers who despite having online access say they may lack the technical ability to use a supermarket’s website or app, according to a recent survey by Consumer World.

The consumer groups have suggested five ways that supermarkets can offer an in-store offline alternative to digital-only deals to accommodate both the digitally-disconnected and the digitally-challenged shopper:

1. Utilize barcoded clip or click store coupons in circulars so the customer can choose their preferred redemption method (e.g., Vons and The Giant Company).

2. Empower cashiers to charge the digital price upon request.

3. Empower customer service personnel to provide refunds for unredeemed digital discounts.

4. Offer physical store coupons next to digital-only deals for those who did not/could not electronically “clip” the offer (e.g., H-E-B).

5. Install coupon kiosks where digital coupons can be added to one’s account in-store (e.g., ShopRite and Food Lion).

The letter to supermarket executives was sent on November 15 to the following chains: Kroger, Albertsons, Stop & Shop, Star Market/Shaw’s, Ralphs, QFC, Jewel Osco, Randalls, Fred Meyer, King Soopers, Smart & Final, and Safeway.

Feel free to offer your opinion of whether supermarkets should make accommodations for seniors and others who don’t have internet access or smartphones to be able to pay the digital price for advertised sale items in stores.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Is Starbucks Pocketing Millions in Small Gift Card Balances Illegally?

Starbucks gift cardA new class action lawsuit claims that Starbucks is pocketing millions of dollars from small balances on used gift cards rather than making refunds of those amounts readily available to customers.

Under the law of some states, consumers can request cash back when a gift card’s balance falls below a certain amount. In this case, since the consumer lives in Massachusetts, that law governs requiring a refund at the customer’s option when the gift card balance falls to five dollars or less.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The complaint in this case alleges:

5. Defendant’s Gift Cards state that they “Cannot be redeemed for cash unless required by law.”

6. However, Defendant does not reveal that despite this affirmation, Defendant’s policy is that the Gift Cards are completely non-refundable and in fact have no mechanism in Massachusetts to refund the value of the Gift Cards even in situations where state law requires it.

The filing says the consumer’s lawyer was not able to get a refund of the $4.94 remaining on his client’s gift card by using the online form on the Starbucks website because that is limited to just residents of California and Oregon. A Boston Starbucks location was also called inquiring about a refund but it was denied there too. What the lawyer apparently didn’t do, however, is call the customer service number listed on the website for those in other states seeking refund assistance.

For its part, the company gave Axios the following statement:

“Starbucks is well aware of state gift card redemption requirements and has proper policies and procedures in place to honor valid gift card cash redemption requests.”

This case is similar to one we reported on in May when Dunkin’ was allegedly found not refunding small balances on its gift cards.

We’ll let you know what happens as these cases move forward.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

CPSC Slow to Issue Product Safety Warnings

We expect state and federal agencies charged with protecting public safety to warn and protect us from dangerous products and defects in a timely way.

That is particularly the role of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In the story below, grieving parents of a baby who died by suffocation in a Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play sleeper in 2017 say the agency knew about previous deaths and injuries but the product was still on the market.

The baby sleeper in this case was eventually recalled by Fisher-Price but only after information about its safety issues and reported deaths was obtained by Consumer Reports and made public. Here is some history.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The federal law being called into question here, section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, has been controversial for years. It basically requires the CPSC to give manufacturers at least 15 days advance warning before it goes public with news of a safety defect from which the public could learn the name of the manufacturer and product involved. The manufacturer can then respond to the CPSC with its position, and object to the release of the information.

Since the CPSC is surprisingly not empowered to order a product recall without going into court to sue for one, the agency and manufacturer are often at loggerheads for years over the issue. This is why when you hear about a recall, it is typically the manufacturer “voluntarily” doing it and not the CPSC. Additionally, some say if manufacturers know that the product defect and injury reports they file with the CPSC are not going to be easily made public that incentivizes them to continue to make such important disclosures.

While the TV report above asserts that section 6(b) is a gag order being placed on the CPSC, a former assistant general counsel at the agency says it is not. He asserts the real problem at the agency is that it fails to understand and use its existing authority.

No matter, in the current Congress, the Sunshine in Product Safety Act was filed to abolish section 6(b), but it has gone to committee and not likely to pass.

Whether section 6(b) is preventing the CPSC from naming names and alerting the public early to safety hazards, or they are not effectively using their own rules and tools, the result is the same. We deserve better protection.

Share this story:

 

ADV