←back to thread

Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

(www.theguardian.com)
510 points bookofjoe | 1 comments | 07 Dec 25 14:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
rtp4me ◴[07 Dec 25 22:55 UTC] No.46186177[source]▶
"The people that would have the ability to push back"...

And they can. Just bring it up to the cashier or managers attention, and voila, they adjust the price. Please let me know if you have had a different experience.

replies(1): >>46187186 #
mindslight ◴[08 Dec 25 01:11 UTC] No.46187186[source]▶
There's no "just". It takes resources to be scanning your receipt for discrepancies and/or running your own tally. And there are a few examples in the article referencing stores refusing to adjust prices, or of people noticing on their receipt that they were defrauded and the store refusing to reimburse them.
replies(1): >>46187263 #
rtp4me ◴[08 Dec 25 01:23 UTC] No.46187263[source]▶
Resources to read the receipt? Are you saying poor people can't do math? Honestly, how much effort does it take to look at your receipt and look for errors? If you are really on a tight budget, I guarantee you will be looking over your receipt.

I have watched countless people shop with a calculator or pen/pad to make sure they stay on budget. It is not hard.

replies(2): >>46187331 #>>46187734 #
1. mindslight ◴[08 Dec 25 02:41 UTC] No.46187734[source]▶
> how much effort does it take to look at your receipt and look for errors [compared to your memory of the exact prices of everything you just bought]

> I have watched countless people shop with a calculator or pen/pad to make sure they stay on budget. It is not hard.

Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Both of those things are straightforwardly doing extra work using your own time and resources. I generally spot check my receipts and do a rough mental tally, but if I had to turn that paranoia to max because some store was continually trying to defraud me, then I would likely stop going there.

If a store refused to adjust a fraudulent charge or honor an offered price, then I would keep escalating the issue and not back down. This too requires resources of having the time to argue, reading as someone who will not simply be browbeaten, plus deescalation and being able to communicate clearly if they call the police, etc.