*MOUSE PRINT:

The AG asserts:

When Defendants schedule a BOGO promotion, they artificially increase the price of the BOGO item in the run-up to the promotion, only to bring the price back down to the pre-BOGO level after the promotion is over.

…on August 20, 2020, the price of a 16.9 oz bottle of O Organics Extra Virgin Olive Oil was $6.99 at the Albertsons on 51st Avenue in Gig Harbor, WA, but Defendants raised the price over 57% (to $10.99) for a BOGO promotion that started a week later. After the BOGO promotion ended, Defendants brought the price back down to $6.99.

Over a five-year period, the lawsuit alleges that Albertson’s overcharged consumers on more than three-million transactions, netting the company almost $20-million.

And this is not the first time the supermarket company has faced charges like this. In 2016, they paid $107-million to settle a similar class action lawsuit, and an unspecified amount in 2023 after a similar suit was settled.

The AG asserts various law violations under the state consumer protection act and seeks restitution for shoppers.

Albertsons Companies operates supermarkets under many different nameplates around the country, including Acme, Carr’s, Haggen, Jewel Osco, Lucky, Pavilions, Randall, Star Market, Shaw’s, Tom Thumb, Von’s, and more. There is no reason to believe that some of these alleged shenanigans are limited to their stores just in Washington state.

However, don’t jump to the conclusion that all their BOGO sales are bogus. There is not a single “regular” price for groceries at supermarkets. Stores offer a variety of sale prices throughout the year. The olive oil above, for example, might be offered at various sale prices during the year, such as $6.99, $9.99, or even buy one, get one free.

Certainly if the store jacks up the price the week before the BOGO sale just to discount it the next week, that is a problem. But retail and advertising laws generally allow stores to establish a “regular” by offering the product in good faith for a reasonable period of time before being allowed to discount it (and make savings claims comparing that sale price to its former price). Washington state does not appear to have specific regulations in this regard.

However, the Federal Trade Commission’s Deceptive Pricing guidelines make clear this prohibition:

Where the seller, in making such an offer, [like BOGO] increases his regular price of the article required to be bought … the consumer may be deceived.

And in a move not good for shoppers just last month, the Washington state supreme court ruled against a consumer who claimed they didn’t really save as much money as they were led to believe when the seller used a misleading regular price. The court found against the consumer saying he/she suffered no actual loss of money despite the misrepresentation.

If I had to guess, Albertsons will settle this case with the WA-AG eventually for a lot of money.

Case in point: When searching for “florists near me” in Google, here are the search results I got for Somerville, Massachusetts:

Photo Illustration

The results above were sponsored, with the first two being national flower networks. The third result, Avas Flowers, was seemingly a local florist right in my town. Clicking on that brings up their website, showing it is indeed in Somerville.

Clicking on their boast of having five-star ratings, reveals their summary.

Looking good, but checking the actual Google reviews brings a big surprise.

*MOUSE PRINT:

It was not 4.7 stars as Avas Flowers boasted, but at least in the Boston area, they only garnered 1.2 stars based on 183 reviews! And they also have a “C” rating from the Better Business Bureau.

More telling… they are not even located in Massachusetts!

*MOUSE PRINT:

Deep in their FAQs, they reveal their company is in Delaware. But according to the BBB, they are actually in New Jersey (the Delaware address is just probably where the company filed its corporation papers).

So, be careful trying to find a local florist in a town where you don’t live. Look for a real street address and local phone number. Double-check the address in Google Maps street view to see if there is an actual florist at the location. Be careful of florists listed in sponsored search results. Even consider calling a local supermarket with a floral department near where the recipient lives. You may find lower prices and reasonable delivery charges.

Happy Mother’s Day.

While normally I would merely click the junk button in my email program when getting an email like this, I decided to look a little further.

Checking the email header confirmed that PayPal was the actual sender.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Hovering over the “Go to PayPal” button revealed that the link was also to the actual PayPal site. Rather than clicking it, I went directly to PayPay in my browser to check on my account. This is what I found there.

To my shock, the actual PayPal website said that there was a pending charge of $987.90 coming to my PayPal account. And it showed an actual transaction that was a test deposit into my account of one Japanese yen. Presumably this was to ensure my account was valid.

I immediately changed my password, and searched the PayPal site to dispute the forthcoming charge. Entering information about the actual transaction that was there — the one yen deposit — resulted in an error indicating that that transaction could not be disputed.

So I called customer service at PayPal using a number I had in my rolodex (888-221-1161) and NOT using the number the email had provided to dispute the transaction. (That step was key so as not to fall for any possible scam.)

After being forced to go through a number of AI prompts to direct my call, I was finally able to speak to a real person. She indicated that I had nothing to worry about — a fraudulent charge was not about to be deducted from my account. She said this was a phishing scam that they were aware of and that it used a real link to PayPal as part of the deception.

The one yen test deposit was a means of making the transaction look legitimate. That action forced PayPal to send me a real confirmation email, and to list the transaction on their website.

But how did the scammers get PayPal to also communicate that a nearly $1,000 charge was pending? It seems that some senders of money like these scammers can put whatever message they want in the subject line or the body of the email that PayPal sends to recipients of money. It will also appear on the PayPal website.

So for one yen, which is worth a little more than half a cent, the scammers can make their pending charge look legitimate and trick people into calling their own 800 number. Clever. Very clever.

A word to the wise… if you get a similar email, do not under any circumstances call the 800 number shown. But you can contact the real PayPal to check on the legitimacy of the transaction posted. And do forward a copy of the email to them: Phishing@PayPal.com

Here are some tips from PayPal to avoid phishing scams.

For example, last week he saw this story headline about Kroger deciding to no longer accept Visa credit cards. Certainly a story like that would be of great interest to many Consumer World readers.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Clicking that headline link brings a big surprise.

The Kroger story that Bing said was just an hour old was actually posted online in 2018 — eight years earlier!

Here are some other recent examples of news stories presented as hot off the press but which are actually anything but.

We asked the PR agency for Microsoft last week to explain why this is happening, for how long, and what is the company going to do to correct it. Through the agency, a Microsoft spokesperson responded:

“A small number of older stories were inadvertently included in Bing News and appeared as newly published. Our teams have identified the issue and are working to implement a fix.”

Hats off to Microsoft for taking quick action to put the “new” back in Bing News, but as of today (April 20), old news is still presented as new.

After walking on areas treated with Safe Melt, which is 100% magnesium chloride, their dogs suffered various injuries including paw and skin irritation and lesions, and one dog developed kidney disease and died.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The lawsuit contends:

… Safe Melt is not safe for pets. It is composed entirely of magnesium chloride (“MCL”), which is harmful for pets to ingest and dangerous for them to touch. Safe Melt can cause gastrointestinal irritation, diarrhea, bloody vomiting, respiratory depression, kidney failure, and cardiac arrest to pets that eat it, lick it, or groom their paws after walking over it. It can also cause chemical burns, cracked paw pads, and painful irritation if it gets embedded in pets’ fur or has direct contact with their skin.

Apparently the company contends that the “pet safe” claim refers to the fact that their product comes in round pellets, rather than sharp, jagged crystals which could cut into pets’ paws. And their website says that the product “won’t burn or irritate pets’ paws.”

The consumers say they paid a premium price for this supposedly safe product and want their money back. The lawyers are suing claiming misrepresentation and false advertising.

If you see a claim on ice melter that says “safe for pets,” what do you understand that to mean?