Supermarket Fined For Pattern Of Overcharges

from the if-it-was-accidental,-wouldn't-there-be-undercharges? dept

Albertsons, the large supermarket chain, has been ordered to pay $1.85 million for a pattern of scanner overcharges at the checkout line. Of course, it sounds like some of this "fine" is being used to improve their stores to make sure that these overcharges stop. Shouldn't that be separate from the fine? Also, none of the fine actually goes back to the customers who were overcharged, though Albertsons will now be required to give the customer any future overcharged items for free. Albertsons says that the problem had to do with their technology, and it was never done with the intent of scamming customers. If that were true, though, wouldn't you expect there to be just as many "undercharges" as there were overcharges?

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..


If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
 

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  

    No Subject Given

    identicon
    aNonMooseCowherd, Sep 3rd, 2003 @ 11:01am

    Generally the problem isn't the technology -- it's that employees don't update information about sale prices on time. And various studies show that there are many more overcharges than undercharges.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  

    Safeway

    identicon
    Richard, Sep 3rd, 2003 @ 11:28am

    I think Safeway had this problem also. Sorry I can't find anything online supporting this. Those with greater sluething prowess may have more success.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  

    Overcharges

    identicon
    Beck, Sep 3rd, 2003 @ 11:30am

    It makes sense that there are more overcharges because it is the sale prices that don't get into the system. It stinks that you need to memorize the price of everything in your shopping cart and watch each item go through the scanner, but last week I received a free case of pop because the system didn't give me the advertised sale price. I wonder how many cases they had to sell at the incorrect high price to make up for the cost of one free case?

    It's a copout to blame it on the technology because the problem is clearly with the process/people. If you scan an item 1 million times the system will come back with the exact same price 1 million times.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  

    No Subject Given

    identicon
    Anthony Cardinale, Sep 3rd, 2003 @ 1:15pm

    When designing any system like that I am sure the programmers would design it by default to pick a higher price when "unsure" about correct price. This would result in more overcharges than undercharges.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  

    Sorry ... Had to do it.

    identicon
    George Orwell, Sep 4th, 2003 @ 9:12am

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  

    Over vs. Under charges

    identicon
    Sniffy McNickles, Sep 4th, 2003 @ 3:32pm

    I would expect more overcharges for the simple reason that stores are going to be much more likely to correct overcharges than undercharges.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  

    No Subject Given

    identicon
    craftsmanship with conscience, Sep 6th, 2003 @ 10:39am

    But when you factor in all the other little glitches that result in overcharges, it quickly begins to look like theres as method behind it.

    Products shelved over the wrong price stickers, some products without price labels at all, "BIG SAVINGS, $2 OFF! (for club members only)".

    Sure, it's probably underpaid staff who just don't give a shit, but I suspect the stores are quite willing to take advantage of it while it lasts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  

    Re: No Subject Given

    identicon
    David Alexander, Dec 30th, 2003 @ 9:20pm

    Store Number 4417
    Perferred customer # 42537470156
    Dec 30 22:16:33
    co136 #3412
    s04417 r004

    A repeated good experience gives me confidence that I will be treated
    fairly. A repeated bad experience leads me to believe that I will be
    cheated, deceived and over charged. I must conclude from far to many bad
    expericences where signage and buy one get one preferred card prices fail
    to be honored at the register. Case in point. Purdue split breast
    chicken $2.79/lb buy one get one rung up not buy one get one. Reference
    number two pattie beef tender loin filets $5.99 rung up $6.99. In line I
    told Carmen it was buy one get one. She said it usually has a sticker on
    it so she would not honor the price. the line was long and she would not
    check the sign in back of the store. She told me I would have to wait for
    her manager to come and check that sign. She didn't take action to
    correct this problem as I have experienced the same incompetacy far to
    many times. I told her to keep the chicken. Dealing with lazy people at
    your store has left me no other choice then to shop else where. I am
    writing today because I am very upset. You, as head of this corporation,
    need to know about this. I am so sick of this happening. When in the past
    I have seen this on my receipts I am forced to wait in the customer
    service line only to deal with managers who treat me like it is my
    problem. Am I to assume that it is the intention of Albertsons to look to
    deceive me in hopes I won't find out or just accept it as, "This is not
    worth driving back to the store for" or "Its only a buck" While I have
    taken that position before. I will take it no more. I intend to register
    a complaints to the BBB and any government agency dealing with consumer
    fraud. This happens far to often to be unintentional and I will not take
    it anymore.
    You will be accountable

    David Alexander
    3420 Gulf Shore Blvd N #72
    Naples, Florida 34103
    239-777-4878



    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 12th, 2010 @ 3:02am

    Ralphs is doing it now.

    "Ralphs and parent company Kroger Co. could face fines and penalties of up to $256,000 each. "

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/my-entry-5.html
    http://www.latimes.com/business/ la-fi-0512-ralphs-20100512,0,6451010.story?page=2

    I seen this on the news, the first time Ralphs did this they fined Ralphs much less. The news said that investigators want to restore consumer trust in the market with the new fines.

    It makes me so mad that the role of government is merely to restore consumer trust and not to actually fix the underlying problem. Our entire corporate/government coercion system is a scam and the only role that the government takes in this scam is merely to restore consumer trust in an untrustworthy system, not to actually fix anything. If they want my trust they have to earn it, they can't merely assert it, and not only have they failed to earn my trust they have managed to earn my distrust and they're going to have a very very hard time ever getting my trust back. EVER.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>


A word from our Sponsors...
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
From the Techdirt Archive...
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This