Banned from Amazon.com?!

[maxparot]

A number of years ago I had an experience with a local CompUSA store that you may find interesting my solution may work as a way to force the reversal of a ban if it should really exist.
I was a regular customer as computers are another of my many hobbies.
Like many stores today CompUSA in NY used a security guard at it's exit to check bags and receipts as you exit the store. This practice is an illegal search and people are not required to abide by it. To make a long story short I was told I could no long shop there after refusing the search. I countered this by having a friends purchase a gift certificate for me. This gave me the legal right to shop there without fear of being arrested for trespassing. A few months later the security guard was removed from the door.
An Amazon gift card would do the same thing for a banned customer once they sell the card they have a legal responsibility to service the account.
The only business' this will not work with are buying clubs such as Sam's, BJ's and Costco. You give up your rights to join the club.

[sbs]

If the add specifies things like "prices valid from 1June - 6June" then it falls under the deceptive advertising laws and they can be forced to honor the pricing until they advertise a correction.

Without the clauses like the "prices valid from" clause, the ad is considered an invitation to come to the store, but with those types of clauses it's considered an offer to sale at that price.

If you'd like I can point to case law in CA where a car dealer advertised a 1995 Jag VP for $25k by error. The manager didn't see the proof sheet before the ad went out to correct it to a 1994 Jag (non-VP). Someone offered to buy it for the advertised price on the spot and they refused. The purchaser sued and won the case. The courts decided that it was the dealer's responsibility to confirm the ad and that since the ad was for THAT Jag at THAT price, it was considered an offer and had to be honored. If the ad had said something like "Jag XJ6's starting at $25k" they would have been off the hook.

Found it online easily, thanks.

I must have misinterpreted your original claim. What I understood you to say was that B&M stores which sell items similar to what Amazon sells are required by law to honor an erroneous advertisement.

What this case tells us is that an automobile dealer in the state of CA which advertises a specific individual car at a specific price _and_ states explicitly that this is an out the door price (includes all taxes and fees, etc.) _and_ fails to perform normal due diligence with regards to checking the advertisement for errors is required by the CA Vehicle Code to sell the car at the erroneous price.

So, if what you meant by your original statement was "Amazon is a 'dishonest company' because if they were a car dealer advertising specific individual items for sale and failing to perform normal error checking then they would have to honor erroneous prices" then I apologize for misreading what you said.

The case _is_ relevant to the other claim (the one I previously understood you to be making) as well, since the case history discussed by the appellate court makes it pretty clear that a pricing error by a B&M store in California for the types of non-specific items that Amazon sells would not be considered by the law to be false advertising.

[woodturner]

Like many stores today CompUSA in NY used a security guard at it's exit to check bags and receipts as you exit the store. This practice is an illegal search and people are not required to abide by it.
...
I countered this by having a friends purchase a gift certificate for me. This gave me the legal right to shop there without fear of being arrested for trespassing.

FWIW, it's not illegal to search your bags as you exit - they post notice by the doors, so you are agreeing to this when you enter the store.

Also, possession of a gift card does NOT give you the right to shop there. In some states, they would be required to refund the gift card if you sued them, but in general, they can just void the gift card.

[Russianwolf]

Found it online easily, thanks.

I must have misinterpreted your original claim. What I understood you to say was that B&M stores which sell items similar to what Amazon sells are required by law to honor an erroneous advertisement.

What this case tells us is that an automobile dealer in the state of CA which advertises a specific individual car at a specific price _and_ states explicitly that this is an out the door price (includes all taxes and fees, etc.) _and_ fails to perform normal due diligence with regards to checking the advertisement for errors is required by the CA Vehicle Code to sell the car at the erroneous price.

So, if what you meant by your original statement was "Amazon is a 'dishonest company' because if they were a car dealer advertising specific individual items for sale and failing to perform normal error checking then they would have to honor erroneous prices" then I apologize for misreading what you said.

The case _is_ relevant to the other claim (the one I previously understood you to be making) as well, since the case history discussed by the appellate court makes it pretty clear that a pricing error by a B&M store in California for the types of non-specific items that Amazon sells would not be considered by the law to be false advertising.

Actually, the case says that taxes, tags, and certain other fees do not have to be included in the advertised price. But that as long as there is no further negotiation on the advertised price (no financing needed, no trade to consider, etc.) that the price must be honored. Westlaw also has case law from Texas and other states as well about consumer price cases that either succeeded or failed for reasons that the language in the small print took into account (which more companies are using to avoid the hassle admittedly), but let's look at it from a pure legal side. What must be proven for false advertising?

regarding false advertising...

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

1) The "erroneous" price was a false statement of fact about the good.
2) The statement deceived people.
3) The statement affected the purchasing decision of the people. They wanted to buy the item from that dealer.
4) The advertising was for goods.
5) the people were harmed in the amount of the difference of the "erroneous" price and the price they had to pay to obtain the item from that or another source.

And as in the case above no further negotiation was needed. Payment was tendered by credit card.

My problem is that even if you say "prices subject to change without notice", you shouldn't be able to refuse to close an advertised offer in order to change the price. Part of my job is contract law, and this would be similar to someone issuing a contract, the acceptance coming in, then saying "oh, I need to change something. it wasn't right the first time". Once you offer a contract and it's accepted with no negotiations, it's binding.

[DaveS]

FWIW, it's not illegal to search your bags as you exit - they post notice by the doors, so you are agreeing to this when you enter the store.

The laws in this area are a bit fuzzy...

It is not illegal for them to ask you if they can search your bag, or ask for your receipt - but it must be voluntary, it cannot be forced or coerced.

However, a retailer cannot detain you for not allowing them to search your bag... unless... they have "probable cause" to believe that you shop lifted.

The term "probable cause" is the fuzzy part, as there is usually no formal definition.

Most stores have a definition for this that allows them to not get sued - something along the lines of witnessing someone conceal merchandise, and keeping continuous surveillance on them until they leave the last point of purchase.

Simply hanging a sign does not relieve the retailer of any liability, grant them any special rights, nor strip the shopper of any rights.

Most "shopping clubs" (e.g. Sam's Club) include this in the terms of service that each member must sign before given access to the store.

This topic is well debated on the interwebs, and many people, some even educated in law , have weighed in on exactly what a retailer can, and cannot do.

The best advice: if a store's policies are offensive to you, shop elsewhere.

[Uncle Cracker]

In some states, they would be required to refund the gift card if you sued them, but in general, they can just void the gift card.

Void the gift card? It has a bona fide monetary value. I don't think they could get away with simply voiding it, unless it was used in a criminal attempt to perpetrate fraud. Even companies who go OB have to compensate gift card holders. What you are suggesting is nothing more than taking somebody's money and keeping it, without providing any value in return, and after representing to the gift card purchaser that it did, in fact, have value in that store.

[cgallery]

The best advice: if a store's policies are offensive to you, shop elsewhere.

Most of these policies have resulted from a certain type of employee theft.

The scheme goes like this: Friend of cashier goes through line. Cashier scans almost everything but a few expensive items. Those expensive items are simply placed in the bag. The friend and the cashier later meet to split the haul.

In some areas of the country it has evolved into organized crime, with scouts looking for stores that don't check bags/receipts of customers as they are leaving. Once a store that meets the requirements is identified, they either approach existing cashiers or start filling the place with their own people.

And they've gotten more sophisticated as retail has adapted, too. The stores added eyes in the sky (cameras over checkout). So they coach cashiers on how to hold their hand over the barcode and then wave the merchandise over the scanner.

Our local CompUSA (now gone) experienced losses as high as 3% of sales under the scheme. HUGE losses.

[phrog]

After reading these posts I now understand why there are sooo many lawyers in this country.

[RichW]

I agree with most here, this sounds like a bad policy. But I think the folks talking about them honoring a low advertised price like a brick and mortar store should consider one issue that internet stores have that brick and mortars don't. Hackers.

Amazon and other web stores have these policies in large part to protect themselves from some kid spending untold man hours figuring out how to get into their system and changing all their prices to $1.00 and having the resulting obligations and chaos completely bankrupt them. Of course, they could honor more reasonable pricing and discount mistakes that they make themselves like normal stores do. On that point, I won't defend them.

I would guess this policy might also be the result of them cutting Customer Service staff as well. They do an analysis and figure they can cut staff if they cut calls and figure out that dropping particular accounts will reduce calls by x% and they do it. Otherwise when they cut staff the quality of Customer Service will go down dramatically with too few on staff.

Still though, they are really cutting off their nose to spite their face to drop customers who drop thousands of dollars and have reasonable Customer Service interaction. Even if you can get it successfully appealed, how many of those customers will still want to shop there? I'd always like Amazon for a number of reasons, but this looks like a real boneheaded move to me.

[woodturner]

Void the gift card? It has a bona fide monetary value. I don't think they could get away with simply voiding it, unless it was used in a criminal attempt to perpetrate fraud. Even companies who go OB have to compensate gift card holders. What you are suggesting is nothing more than taking somebody's money and keeping it, without providing any value in return, and after representing to the gift card purchaser that it did, in fact, have value in that store.

A couple of points:
1. Stores that go bankrupt generally do NOT honor the gift cards or compensate the gift card holder. If the store goes bankrupt, they are generally worthless. Sharper Image customers recently expierienced this very thing.

2. A gift card has "no monetary value" - read the fine print. When you buy a gift card, you have bought a piece of plastic which the retailer MAY choose to exchange for merchandise - or not. One reason the stores like gift cards so much, other than the fact that many people buy them and never use them, is that they can nibble away the value month by month. Once you buy the gift card, they have your money, and it is their choice whether they allow you to redeem it or not. If anyone actually READ the gift card policies of most retailers, no one would ever buy a gift card.

3. The store is not "taking somebody's money and keeping it, without providing any value in return," - they are selling you a nice plastic card for your $50 or whatever. Gift cards have no value, other than the value the store may allow you to exchange it for.

[Uncle Cracker]

Well, I guess I'll just sell a bunch of gift cards, void them all and retire in style, since nobody can touch me... Somehow, I don't think I'd get off that easy...

[jussi]

I know in California (maybe nationwide) it's illegal for gift cards to expire so I seriously doubt you can void them without refunding the balance. Unless (as stated) the person was trying to commit a crime.

[woodturner]

Well, I guess I'll just sell a bunch of gift cards, void them all and retire in style, since nobody can touch me... Somehow, I don't think I'd get off that easy...

If you write the terms and conditions well, you would have no problems at all, unless someone was willing to go to the time and expense of claiming your intent was to defraud - basically very hard to prove.

So essentially you would get away with it - IF you wrote the terms and conditions properly.

[woodturner]

I know in California (maybe nationwide) it's illegal for gift cards to expire so I seriously doubt you can void them without refunding the balance. Unless (as stated) the person was trying to commit a crime.

It's not quite that simple. California and other states have passed laws making it a civil offense (not a criminal offense e.g. illegal) to impose an expiration date on gift cards previously issued or without full disclosure. So they can sell you a gift card with an expiration date, they just have to tell you about it.

[Alex Franke]

It's not quite that simple. California and other states have passed laws making it a civil offense (not a criminal offense e.g. illegal) to impose an expiration date on gift cards previously issued or without full disclosure. So they can sell you a gift card with an expiration date, they just have to tell you about it.

We recently discovered a couple Sacks Fifth Ave gift cards that were given to us while in California more than 10 years ago. (I think I tried to use them once and discovered that there was nothing there that I could afford -- even with $200 in gift cards )

Anyway, I thought, "Surely these must be expired by now" but I called them just in case. They had not expired, nor had they lost any of their value. I was pretty shocked...

EDIT: Ha -- I actually posted here about it: http://www.bt3central.com/showthread.php?t=35627 Dang, is there nothing i don't tell you all?!? :lol: