In fact, the federal law called Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”) has been on the books since 2010. It says for negative option plans, like subscriptions that continue from month to month until canceled provides:

*MOUSE PRINT:

…simple mechanisms for a consumer to stop recurring charges from being placed on the consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account.

The New York Attorney General decided to go after SiriusXM for making it difficult for customers to cancel. They alleged that subscribers had to speak to a live agent, who, working from a prepared script, presented ever-more-enticing retention offers to discourage the member from cancelling. Basically, they were instructed not to take no as an answer.

The New York Supreme Court took up the matter and ruled. While finding in favor of SiriusXM on various of the state’s legal theories of state law violations, they found that Sirius’ actions violated ROSCA. Specifically, the court pointed to a 2021 interpretive statement from the FTC that said in part that cancellation methods have to be as easy as their sign-up method, and that the companies should not subject consumers to new offers or similar attempts that unreasonably delay the consumer’s cancellation efforts.

Given those requirements, the court found in favor of New York and ordered that (monetary) damages be assessed.

(This story comes from the Mouse Print* archive of unpublished stories of consumer interest.)

I always (foolishly) assumed that the burger-like patties in these dinners were made from beef. But nay, nay.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In fact, Lean Cuisine’s patty is made from beef and pork.

Worse news came when checking the ingredients statements of some other Salisbury steak dinners.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In these products, beef was no longer the first ingredient in the patties — in fact, it was the last ingredient among the main contents. There was more chicken, pork and water in each patty than beef!

All is not bad news for Salisbury steak lovers. Stouffer’s boldly promotes that its patties are made with 100% beef.

The cereal in question, 19.5-ounce “family size” boxes of Post Fruity Pebbles, is supposed to have enough cereal for 15 one-cup bowls of cereal.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The consumer’s lawyers contend, however, that it has far less.

*MOUSE PRINT:

They hired an independent testing lab which determined that the cereal is denser than the label indicates, so you actually only get 11.3 one-cup serving per box, and thus the claimed amount of calories, sugar, and sodium is far higher per serving than represented.

So, the company is being sued for false and misleading statements and unjust enrichment under New York law. They are asking the judge for refunds and corrective advertising.

*MOUSE PRINT:

On his bill was the expected sales/meals tax, but then a second line was labeled “Tax 2.” According to the lawsuit:

Moreover, once the “Tax 2” amount appeared on the receipt, the representation of the Junk Fee as a “tax” lead Mr. Murphy to believe that “Tax 2” was a mandatory charge imposed by the government that was required to be paid on the transaction by him. The representation of the
Junk Fee as a “Tax” was also material to Mr. Murphy.

When Mr. Murphy paid for the two pizzas and the breadsticks in cash at checkout, he was charged two “tax” amounts. In addition to sales tax, Mr. Murphy was charged a “Tax 2” amount that, although deceptively and misleadingly labeled as “Tax,” was in reality a Junk Fee charged by Defendants to offset their own business expenses.

Under California’s “Honest Pricing Act” additional junk fees are illegal because businesses are prohibited from “[a]dvertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(29)(A).

Domino’s is being sued for unfair business practices, violation of the new complete pricing law, and the state false advertising law. The consumer’s lawyers are seeking refunds and damages, and an order stopping Domino’s from continuing to charge any illegal extra fees.

At the appointed hour last Monday, MrConsumer along with perhaps thousands of others watched the Aldi clock tick down to zero so we could try to get a box of goodies. After clicking the “claim a box” button, your online cart showed that a box was added to it. Then you had to click a “check out” button and prove you were a human by solving THREE CAPTCHAS, and then later another set of CAPTCHAS. At that point you are told you are in line to check out and for me it said the estimated wait time was 45 minutes.

After patiently waiting three-quarters of an hour, a message popped up saying they were all sold out!

Say what?

Soon after Monday’s giveaway we received a complaint from a regular reader who experienced the exact same thing. She commented, “I wasted 42 minutes believing that Aldi was going to honor my place in line.” Some other people said they got as far as entering their shipping information but then received a “sold out” message.

Immediately, we wrote to Aldi’s PR people complaining about the misleading nature of the promotion because it gave entrants the impression that a free box was in their cart and that they were just waiting in line to check out. We asked many pointed questions including how they were going to make good for the thousands of customers they disappointed. They only answered that question as noted below.

In addition, it appears that Aldi may have violated state and federal sweepstakes laws that require disclosing “official rules” of giveaways like this. A review of the Internet Archive reveals that they did not make this disclosure prior to the Monday drawing, but did so in time for the ones after that.

A glutton for punishment, MrConsumer returned on day two of the promotion where the process remained the same except the wait time was reduced to just four minutes seemingly. However, when the four minutes elapsed, the wait time reset to 30 minutes, followed by the inevitable “sold out” message! The video below shows the process in actual time.

By day three of the promotion, the company finally decided to explain to participants how the promotion worked in detail. Duh.

*MOUSE PRINT:

This promotion has resulted in a deluge of complaints and comments being posted online — over 10,000 on Aldi’s Instagram alone — and rightfully so. [Account needed to read Instagram.]

Part of the problem was that despite having 2,684 stores in the United States, Aldi only made available 84 – 92 boxes a day (without disclosing that to participants initially), and chose an entry system that inconvenienced and misled their customers. They should pay a price for that, both monetarily and legally.

After the fourth and final day of the planned giveaway, Aldi announced a make good of sorts — an unscheduled fifth day of mystery box giveaways, wherein the company would offer 5,000 free boxes but still using the same cockamamie system.

In making the announcement, Aldi said they were doing it “because when the fans get loud, ALDI responds with an encore.” Get loud? They really meant “complain.”

How did the 5,000 box giveaway turn out? No different. Despite entering the site before noon, clicking the “claim a box” button as soon as it appeared adding the mystery box to my cart, the countdown clock to check out said 4 minutes. After hitting zero, it reset to 22 minutes. And after hitting zero again it reset to 17 minutes. And after hitting zero again it reset to 12 minutes. And when it hit zero for a fourth time (a total of 55 minutes waiting in queue), here’s what MrConsumer (and others) saw:

As one poster said on Instagram after Friday’s make-good farce:

Today’s was the biggest joke of them all… Never again… I have wasted 2-1/2 hours on this.