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.

In the lawsuit, the consumer claimed that the parking companies involved illegally obtained his name and home address contrary to the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) which limits who can access official motor vehicle department records. (Presumably those companies captured his license plate and obtained his registration information from the DMV.)

The parking companies told the judge that this matter needed to go to arbitration because there were supposedly conspicuous signs in the lot that told customers that any parking disputes had to be handled through arbitration.

Can merely having a sign hanging in a facility bind a customer to mandatory arbitration in case of a dispute?

*MOUSE PRINT:

The judge recently ruled that a contract was formed:

… a reasonable driver knows that when they park in a parking lot, they agree to an implied contract with the lot owner: the lot owner allows the driver to park on their property, and the driver agrees to follow the rules laid out by the lot owner, including paying the required rates. If the driver does not follow the rules or does not pay, they may be subject to a ticket or their car being towed. The driver is free to leave the lot without parking if he does not want to agree to these implied terms …

But, with respect to arbitration, only one of the three companies who were being sued by consumer, can get out of the lawsuit. And that is the company named on the sign responsible for enforcing nonpayment issues. The other two companies, Laz and the company that provides the license plate reading technology that snagged this consumer, still have to face charges in court.

The judge did not accept the consumer’s argument that he failed to see the signs since it was dark. She found them to be conspicuous and in multiple locations, and the consumer chose not to learn the terms of this implied contract with the parking lot, that was his fault.

One has to wonder if this could lead to stores putting mandatory arbitration notices on their entrance doors (e.g., “If you enter the store, you agree to resolve any disputes with X retailer via arbitration”)?

You get bottles of these eight prescription drugs to self-treat conditions such as parasites, strep, pneumonia, lyme disease, bacterial infections, GI and urinary tract infections, and more.

To get the kit, you have to fill out a health form, and have a brief consultation with a health professional at the company who can write the prescription.

Once you get the kit, how exactly do you diagnose yourself with these conditions? They give you a handy booklet about what to use each drug for, or you can speak to a health-care professional at their company during regular business hours for an extra fee, presumably.

And how much does this kit cost? $299.

*MOUSE PRINT:

In their FAQ section they reveal a key fact:

To the best of our knowledge, no state pharmacy boards or consumer authorities have taken legal action against the company because what they are doing may not be outside current medical, legal, and ethical guidelines. One state pharmacy board reportedly denied a drugstore’s request to carry a similar kit in their store.

Some things are very unsettling about this whole proposition: