←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
JSR_FDED ◴[07 Dec 25 15:10 UTC] No.46182225[source]▶
23% of items are rung up at a higher amount at the register than what it says on the shelf, yet North Carolina law caps penalties at $5,000 per inspection, offering retailers little incentive to fix the problem.

In other words, regulatory capture at its finest, over the backs of the poorest in the country.

replies(11): >>46182488 #>>46182865 #>>46182983 #>>46183366 #>>46184708 #>>46184835 #>>46185258 #>>46185665 #>>46186170 #>>46186279 #>>46191809 #
burnt-resistor ◴[07 Dec 25 17:29 UTC] No.46183366[source]▶
I don't know NC law. Does it have an "invitation to treat" practice there where prices marked are a customer relations issue rather than a legally-binding offer?

To attain change, enough people have to:

1. Correctly identify the source of their misery, because it ain't [insert scapegoats].

2. Find others who agree with them.

3. Make a plan for effective countering of 1.

4. Use intestinal fortitude and endure temporary setbacks to achieve 3. to overcome 1.

5. Prevent 1. from ever happening again structurally, culturally, and through vigilant participation.

The 0th problem is the political operating system is captured by criminals and power has centralized grotesquely in ways that defeat the fundamental function of separation of powers. All elected officials corrupted by lobbyist bribes need to face accountability and have a code of ethics and integrity, because continuing down this path is the road to ruin.

replies(2): >>46184863 #>>46185300 #
dmurray ◴[07 Dec 25 20:31 UTC] No.46184863[source]▶
I don't think the laws of the specific jurisdiction matter. In every US jurisdiction, the prices aren't completely legally binding (what if the previous customer changed the price tag?). In ~every US jurisdiction, if you systematically show one price but charge customers another, that's an offence.

So intent matters. What would decide an individual case is not the exact characterisation of the laws on the books, but how sympathetic a regulator or a judge is to the supermarket's claim that these things just happen sometimes.

replies(1): >>46185227 #
mindslight ◴[07 Dec 25 21:15 UTC] No.46185227[source]▶
If another customer changed the price tag, that would be in the same category as if a person unaffiliated with the store said "I'll give you a deal on this item for $10", then pocketed the money while you walked out with the (still not yours) item. This doesn't really have any bearing on whether the owner of a store putting up a sign with a specific price for a specific item that a customer can directly take possession of constitutes a binding offer.
replies(1): >>46186106 #
1. dmurray ◴[07 Dec 25 22:49 UTC] No.46186106[source]▶
Sure, but it's in the same category as the owner putting up a sign by mistake, or omitting to update a sign by mistake. Or more realistically, an employee of the owner putting up a sign even though the owner had instructed him to put up a different sign.
replies(1): >>46187162 #
2. mindslight ◴[08 Dec 25 01:05 UTC] No.46187162[source]▶
> or omitting to update a sign by mistake

No, in this case the shop is legitimately offering an item for sale, and then forgetting to change the price they are offering it at. It's quite disingenuous for a shop to put up signs, and then act like those numbers aren't legally binding, while the real prices are hidden away in a database somewhere. If they want to have their database be the authoritative copy pricing information, then they can just not put up price signs to begin with.

replies(1): >>46189405 #
3. dmurray ◴[08 Dec 25 07:25 UTC] No.46189405[source]▶
> If they want to have their database be the authoritative copy pricing information, then they can just not put up price signs to begin with.

This one really does vary by jurisdiction, but no, grocery stores generally must display prices by law.

replies(1): >>46194603 #
4. mindslight ◴[08 Dec 25 16:54 UTC] No.46194603{3}[source]▶
Sure, but the point of those laws is to diminish the ability for merchants to obscure prices, as a deliberate public policy goal.

Such places are likely to have more proactive regulations against price discrepancies well, rather than common law "freedom".

Still I can imagine a few ways for a store to post prices without being in the territory of forming binding offers - keep stock only accessible to employees, post obnoxious signs everywhere stating that the prices are for informational purposes and that no offer is implied, require membership for entry with appropriate terms, etc.

Or rather than continuing to run the complexity treadmill trying to escape regulation, stores can just accept that they're bound by laws that were settled quite some time ago, and that their business includes making offers to sell items.