Updated every Monday!   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.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Subway’s “No Tuna” in Their Tuna Sandwiches Saga Nears an End

It has been going on for nearly two-and-half years already. Two California consumers claimed there was no tuna in Subway’s tuna sandwiches.

The case generated headlines worldwide.

Subway Tuna Headlines

We’ve written six stories about the case. First the consumer claimed there was no tuna in their subs, then her lawyers said it wasn’t 100-percent tuna, and on and on. The lawyers filed and withdrew complaint after complaint, changing their theory of the case.

The company got a huge black eye because of these cases, and probably suffered significant reputational damage and lost sales.

Now, on April 20, 2023, the consumer sought to voluntarily dismiss the case.

But guess what? Subway said not so fast. In essence, because the consumer and her lawyers put the company through the wringer even after having been provided with documentation pinpointing the place where the tuna is captured to how it’s packaged, Subway’s lawyers are seeking sanctions against the consumer’s lawyers.

They say the suit should have been dropped long ago, and way before the company had to spend over $600,000 in legal fees to defend itself. The six consumer lawyers filed various pleadings, they say, to extend the lawsuit “motivated by the prospect that Subway might simply pay a windfall settlement.”

For their part, the consumer’s lawyers countered that the consumer is withdrawing her complaint because of health issues. They went on to say:

Plaintiff filed her complaints with a good faith, non-frivolous basis based on testing and evidence that there was something amiss with respect to the meat product defendants were selling as ‘tuna.’

MrConsumer has always thought the case was a little fishy because of the questionable test results the consumer’s lawyers claimed to have. Now, finally, the case should come to a conclusion after an August hearing.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Amazon Accused of Misrepresenting Fast Prime Delivery

Amazon PrimeRecently, two California consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon claiming that the company misrepresents how fast it delivers products when you have a Prime membership.

On their website, Amazon promises free same-day or one-day delivery on millions of items. In other places, they promise two-day shipping.

The lawsuit contends that in many cases the company does not deliver on the promise.

*MOUSE PRINT:

… in opting to purchase [Prime] and pay a monthly $12.99 monthly fee for the Product, Plaintiff Brittain relied on the expedited shipping speed attributes, which are undoubtedly material to the reasonable consumer. During the time span when Plaintiff Brittain paid for [Prime], on at least three occasions, Defendant Amazon failed to provide her with the advertised benefits of [Prime]. and deliver her ordered goods within the marketed shipping speed of two days or less.

The suit contends that the plaintiffs would not have bought the membership or would have paid less than the current $139 a year or $12.99 a month had they known of the longer delivery times that they would experience.

In claiming misrepresentation and unfair practices, the lawyers are seeking restitution and damages for all affected California Prime members.

So what has your experience been with Prime? Do you typically get the same day, next day, or 2-day delivery that the company promises?