←back to thread

Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

(www.theguardian.com)
510 points bookofjoe | 4 comments | 07 Dec 25 14:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nlh ◴[07 Dec 25 15:16 UTC] No.46182273[source]▶
“In one court case in Ohio, Dollar General’s lawyers argued that “it is virtually impossible for a retailer to match shelf pricing and scanned pricing 100% of the time for all items. Perfection in this regard is neither plausible nor expected under the law.””

Sorry—-what? Isn’t that one of the fundamental basic jobs to be done and expectations of a retailer? You put physical things on display for sale, you mark prices on them, and you sell them. When the prices change, you send one of your employees to the appropriate shelves and you change the tag.

When on earth did we get into a world where that absolutely fundamental most basic task is now too burdensome to do with accuracy?

replies(6): >>46182352 #>>46182395 #>>46182568 #>>46182666 #>>46184839 #>>46184890 #
tokai ◴[07 Dec 25 15:25 UTC] No.46182352[source]▶
Just make the sticker price legally binding and this issue would be solved with almost perfect precision.
replies(1): >>46182566 #
mindslight ◴[07 Dec 25 15:50 UTC] No.46182566[source]▶
The sticker price is legally binding - it constitutes an offer, and the cash register surreptitiously charging a higher price from what the customer has agreed to constitutes fraud. The problem is that asserting your rights takes time, resources, and energy that people shopping at these stores generally do not have. The people that would have the ability to push back instead just use their resources to move on and shop somewhere else that isn't immediately abusing them.
replies(2): >>46182684 #>>46186177 #
gucci-on-fleek ◴[07 Dec 25 16:04 UTC] No.46182684[source]▶
> The sticker price is legally binding, as it constitutes an offer

While I wish that that were how things worked, unfortunately, the US legal system disagrees [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat#Case_law

replies(1): >>46182720 #
1. dymk ◴[07 Dec 25 16:08 UTC] No.46182720[source]▶
That’s about ads, not sticker price on the shelf, and about a lack of obligation to sell at that price. It does not say that it’s alright to lie and charge a different price at the register.
replies(1): >>46186727 #
2. gucci-on-fleek ◴[08 Dec 25 00:00 UTC] No.46186727[source]▶
From the Wikipedia article:

> A display of goods for sale in a shop window or within a shop is an invitation to treat, as in the Boots case, a leading case concerning supermarkets. The shop owner is thus not obliged to sell the goods, even if signage such as "special offer" accompanies the display. […] If a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low price it is not obliged to sell it for that amount.

replies(1): >>46187301 #
3. faidit ◴[08 Dec 25 01:29 UTC] No.46187301[source]▶
Boots was a UK court case. The Wikipedia article you linked has a note at the top that it mainly refers to British law.

In the US, local laws generally side with the consumer and legally entitle you to the displayed price. There are also federal laws from the FTC act against deceptive pricing.

See some US state laws here: https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/us-retail-pricing-laws-and-regu...

a few summaries from https://www.braincorp.com/resources/the-price-must-be-right-...:

>Michigan requires a bonus of 10 times the overcharge amount.

New Jersey’s Retail Pricing Laws mandate that most retail stores clearly mark the total selling price on most items offered for sale. Retailers must also verify the accuracy of their checkout scanners and may face fines of $50-$100 per violation for noncompliance.

Connecticut law requires stores to charge the lowest of the advertised, posted, or labeled price for an item. Customers who are overcharged are entitled to a refund of the overcharge or $20, whichever is greater

replies(1): >>46187971 #
4. gucci-on-fleek ◴[08 Dec 25 03:29 UTC] No.46187971{3}[source]▶
Ah, you indeed appear to be correct. Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for the correction.