I suspect bait-and-switch selling, what can I do as a consumer? I’ll keep this as generic as possible in terms of which store and which products were involved, but here’s the situation: Location, product(s) and retailer: I’m in Canada, the seller is a chain store that is well known in their industry, they have a large presence online and with multiple retail locations both in Canada and in other countries. The purchases were made on their Canadian website. The product in question is a consumer product (a type of tool) of which there are many versions; the key difference between the different versions is the materials used. The different versions are easily distinguishable in pictures because they are differently coloured. For this situation we’ll consider two versions of the product: version A is an upgraded version of the “standard” version B, version A usually costs around double what version B does. The situation: I’m part of a facebook group that pertains to one of my hobbies. Someone on one of those groups shared a link to the online store of the retailer, who was selling version A of the product around 40% less than normal retail price (it’s common to share such links on this group when you find good deals). The advertised image on the website was that of version A and the description (basically a specs sheet) clearly stated the materials used were those of version A. It was a good deal, not too good to be true (stuff goes on sale all the time) but some group members contacted the store’s customer support to make sure. Customer support confirmed that it was indeed version A. So far, so good, everyone’s happy, a few of us bought the item thinking that it was version A. (you probably figured out where this is going) A few days later packages start arriving in the mail and everyone received version B. We had a good deal on version A at 40% off, but even at that price it’s slightly more than what version B would cost… so one was happy. We contacted customer support who apologized, they said they did not carry version A (in fact, they never carried it in Canada) and that it was simply a mistake on the website. The website has now been updated to show the image and description of version B. Because they do not sell version A, they say that there’s nothing they can do to provide us with the products that were advertised. They offered everyone who contacted them to return the item for a refund. Additional info: Some people who bought the items took screenshots of the webpage which was clearly advertising version A, and of the email sent to them by customer support confirming that it was indeed version A. My question: What can I do in this situation? Does it qualify as bait-and-switch selling? How would I leverage that against them? Ideally, I’d like to somehow force them to honour the listing and provide us with version A, however many of us already took the hassle-free route of simply returning for refund and since the items are worth about $140, there’s not enough financial motivation to call up a lawyer to sue them.
A lawsuit is designed to put you in the position you were in before the sale happened. Since the company has already offered you a full refund, suing would achieve nothing except cost you fees; your time and frustration are not legally recompensable. It may be that some consumer-protection office can fine this company for misleading advertising; the case would turn on whether the mistake should have been noticed before customer support sent a false confirmation. If you want to start the process, you should make a formal complaint to your local trading standards/customer service office. You will get no reward except relief to your feelings.
Since you bought these online the Consumer Contract Regulations are going to be in effect here (if the price of the goods was over £42 anyway), (legislation) Where your cutting the tags off and wearing them outside for an hour comes into play is that would probably be considered &quot;excessive handling&quot; and they might be able to make a deduction from the amount of the refund. Your business can make a deduction from the value of the goods if you consider the customer has handled the goods excessively. You can’t deduct monies from the refund simply because the goods have been removed from the packaging or because the goods have been tried on or checked. In essence, distance selling purchasers are entitled to handle goods in the same way that they would in a normal retail store. That therefore includes touching the item or trying it on. Since no retail store is going to let you cut the tags from a pair of shoes and walk outside for an hour in them I'd say that test is probably met here. How much can they deduct? As the CCR puts it (emphasis mine): (9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price. Which is likely where the &quot;saleable condition&quot; aspect is coming from - if they aren't in a condition where the retailer can sell them on they've essentially lost their full value. If the retailer makes returned goods available for sale on the site at reduced prices (like the &quot;Amazon warehouse&quot; deals) then a deduction of the difference in sale price between that and full retail is more likely.
I only address the core legal question. The first question regards where the review appeared: on the facility's own web page, or on some third party web page? In the latter case, there is the possibility that soliciting a modified review in exchange for something of value violates the terms of usage for that web site. There are also US federal regulations pertaining to advertising, as well as state regulations. The federal regulations are here. The main question is whether what you say constitutes an endorsement, as specified here. They define an endorsement as: any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser. The regulation in fact gives some helpful examples (reading them helps to clarify what an "endorsement" is), the last of which involves a dog: Example 8: A consumer who regularly purchases a particular brand of dog food decides one day to purchase a new, more expensive brand made by the same manufacturer. She writes in her personal blog that the change in diet has made her dog's fur noticeably softer and shinier, and that in her opinion, the new food definitely is worth the extra money. This posting would not be deemed an endorsement under the Guides. Assume now that the consumer joins a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so. If she receives a free bag of the new dog food through this program, her positive review would be considered an endorsement under the Guides. The distinction at issue is whether the suggestion of receiving something of value might influence a person's statements. You can pay for a positive review, as a reward for saying nice things, as long as the reviewer had no reason to think that they would get get something in return for a review. Taking your review to be an endorsement, as required here, Endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser. The regulation does not require you to reveal every thing that came into your mind in writing the review, but it is pretty clear that suppressing the concern about vaccination paperwork and the star count constitutes a dishonest statement of opinion of the endorser. Material connections must also be revealed: When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed. For example, when an endorser who appears in a television commercial is neither represented in the advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of compensation prior to and in exchange for the endorsement or the fact that the endorser knew or had reason to know or to believe that if the endorsement favored the advertised product some benefit, such as an appearance on television, would be extended to the endorser In the 7th example under material disclosure, they describe a blogger who received something of value in connection with a review: the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge I should point out that these regulations are written by the FTC, and the implied interpretation (such as that the blogger should disclose... with no clearly stated penalty for failure to disclose) is an FTC interpretation. 15 USC 52 prohibits false advertisements for services affecting commerce. This is the jurisdictional aspect of their complaint against Cure Encapsulations, where defendants paid for reviews on a third-party website (this case involves a relationship between defendant and a fourth-party company that apparently hunts for and pays reviewers). This is apparently the first instance in which the FTC has gone against a business for paying for reviews on a third party web site, so it's not a foregone conclusion that they will prevail in court. Still, Chevron deference means that they will probably win at least on the jurisdictional question. The main difference is that in the Cure Encapsulation case, the violation was even more egregious in that the individuals were not even customers, and in this instance the would-(not)-be review was not the honest opinion of the endorser.
In fact, the first recognition of the First Sale doctrine came about precisely because a publisher attempted to do something of the nature of what you suggest. In Bobbs-Merrill Co. vs Straus, the Bobbs-Merrill Corporation attempted to enforce the following restriction, printed on the inside of a book it published: "The price of this book at retail is one dollar net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright." They made the mistake of attempting to enforce it against, among others, R.H. Macy and Co., who they then had to take to court - and lost. This established the First Sale Doctrine, which then later (in 1976) was codified (in 17 U.S. Code § 109. Textbooks recently tested another element of this; in the 2013 case, Kirtsaeng v John Wiley and Sons Inc., the Supreme Court held that the First Sale doctrine trumped a notice forbidding selling a book outside of a particular territory or region (Kirtsaeng imported textbooks from Thailand, where they were much cheaper than in the US, and resold them at a profit in the US).
I can't speak for the US but in Australia this would not be binding. You entered a contract for the vacuum cleaner the terms of conditions of which were made known to you at the time of purchase &ndash; the ticketed price, any store or website displayed terms and whatever was written on the outside of the box. Any alleged terms that were not made known when you entered the contract e.g. because they are inside the box are just that: alleged. In addition, the manufacturer would have committed an offence under Australian Consumer Law by misleading you that such terms were binding. This could lead to a fine in the multiple millions of dollars if the breach is widespread and egregious enough.
I am not aware of any law making this illegal. You need to avoid any "bait and switch" tactics, though, like initially offering cola for $1 and then not actually letting them buy it for that price.
In Australia, the overall representations of the website must not be misleading or deceptive when it comes to the provision of goods or services, in order to comply with Australian Consumer Law. The length of the terms matters. In a very recent case against a homeopathy website, it was noted that (at [47]): The terms and conditions were exceedingly lengthy and it was highly unlikely that any visitor would trawl through them merely to access another part of the Website for free. In this case the significance of the length was not specifically tested. The position of the terms also matters. In another case against a major retailer, it was noted (at [37]) that the conditions visible: a user accessed a link at the bottom of each page of the HN Website titled “Website Terms and Conditions”, such that it was unlikely either condition would be found by a normal reader reading the HN Catalogue or viewing the HN Website This specific matter related to a very specific claim made by the retailer, and so I can't say whether it applies in general to website terms and conditions. Apart from the above cases, I can't find any good examples where the exact form of a website's terms have been considered in determining a case. There are some United States cases referred to in the Wikipedia article for browse wrap. These seem to have been judged in favour of the website operator only when the terms are conspicuous, and/or when the user has had repeated exposure to them (or a link to them), for example over a number of pages. Even where the terms are linked at the bottom of the website, and a user is not required to scroll to the bottom to use the site, terms have been found unenforceable. As far as I know, there's no statutory requirements - in Australia, at least, and quite likely anywhere else - that specify the manner and form that disclaimers may take.
No it’s not illegal It’s called retailing: https://youtu.be/ywSkKkuGQ2A https://youtu.be/k8OreiHU91Y https://youtu.be/XpR6y1sNArU You are allowed to advertise the products you sell. Even if you don’t make them. You can even use their trademarks to identify them - that’s what trademarks are for.