Amazon Adjusts Prices After Sales Error 756
An anonymous reader writes "On December 23, Amazon advertised a 'buy one get one free' sale on DVD box-sets, but apparently did not test the promotion before going live. When anyone placed two box-sets in their cart, the website gave a double discount — so the 'grand total' shown (before order submission) was $0.00 or some very small amount. Despite terms stating that Amazon checks order prices before shipping, Amazon shipped a large number of these orders. Five days later (December 28), after orders had been received and presumably opened, Amazon emailed customers advising them to return the box-sets unopened or their credit cards would be charged an additional amount (more threads). Starting yesterday, Amazon has been (re)charging credit cards, often without authorization. On Amazon's side, they didn't advertise any double discount, and the free or nearly-free box-sets must have cost them a mint. But with Amazon continually giving unadvertised discounts that seem to be errors, is 'return the merchandise or be charged' the new way that price glitches will be handled?"
Not new at all... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Informative)
Is that even legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Think about it this way: You go to Asda (or Wal-Mart or whatever) and buy something. If the supermarket decided that there was an error in the price, or found that their till has miscalculated some promotion in some way, could they come to your house and demand more money or the goods back? No, they couldn't.
As an interesting side point, the supermarket near me will effectively pay you to take home food from the reductions counter when their tills apply a promotional discount greater than the price the food has been reduced to! I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on if they demanded it back after the sale had completed.
Many similar cases exist (Score:5, Informative)
It is easy to suspect that Amazon did this on purpose.
In Sweden politicians are talking about writing a law that will basically give the cunsumers the right to keep whatever is sent to them, even if they never ordered it.
I sometimes order things from my Cable-TV/Internet-provider on their webpage. The conditions are often very unclear - to the point I suspect they are vague on purpose.
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:5, Informative)
This in particular is a clear case of Unjust Enrichment [wikipedia.org].
Don't use your "real" credit card. (Score:5, Informative)
Poor Amazon... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fraud protection anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
No. You can't ask somebody to pay one price for something and then charge them something else, even if you've previously told them the terms will be what you later change them back to be. This is called the "last shot" rule: the last exchange between vendor and purchaser determines what's in a contract: if it contradicts anything agreed previously, then the previous agreement is cancelled.
They can't charge your card without your authorization, right? RIGHT?!
Right. So you talk to your bank and ask them to charge it back. The bank will ask a few question and do so, the money appearing back in your account after ~7 days in my experience. At the other end, Amazon will receive a number of charges from their bank for the privelege of dealing with the mess. Serves 'em right.
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:2, Informative)
Amazon's problem - They should swallow the loss, and not piss off customers by making them go to their credit card companies and complain that the new charge is unauthorized.
Re:Welcome to the ME society. (Score:2, Informative)
Slashdot has until now been a free service, however this has seriously cut into our profits so we have unfortunately had to initiate a fee of $5.00 per post. Since the deal was obviously unfair to us in the past, we will be retroactively charging you for your previous 699 posts. Your total will be automatically added to your credit card in the amount of $36669.75. Naturally, this includes interest on the money owed us in the past. Thank you for your contribution.
Suck it up,
Slashdot management
Any lawyers want to comment? (Score:2, Informative)
If Amazon didn't charge your card originally (or charged for $0.00), then maybe they can claim that there was no sale because there was no consideration. Maybe, I don't know.
But if they did charge you, even $0.01, then there was consideration and they cannot not now unilaterally change the terms of their offer after the fact (i.e., after your credit card paid them).
My non-lawyerly comment: It's time that these online merchants were dealt with seriously by consumers. Maybe then they will allocate sufficient human resources to properly manage their business and not depend on their "long arm" to fix problems for themselves after they make these mistakes.
Re:Many similar cases exist (Score:3, Informative)
It's like trying to demand a letter or the value of the paper & ink back, only the letter is worth more.
Re:Many similar cases exist (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Many similar cases exist (Score:3, Informative)
Later you talk about Sweden, so perhaps you aren't posting from the US. Here that would be illegal. If someone mails you something you didn't ask for, its yours free. That's a federal law.
Re:Can this possibly be legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fraud protection anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
This is true. After you receive your monthly invoice from VISA (or sooner if you use online banking), you simply have to pick up the phone and report a fraudulent charge. VISA will then "investigate" and chargeback Amazon.
However, I don't know how it is in the US, but here any company is free to not accept certain credit cards even if they are valid.
Technically they can. They have your card data, so it's easy to do so. Legally, depends on the country. Some countries require companies that offer automatic rebilling (eg. porn, domainnames, etc) to have the user confirm every rebilling operation. Other countries don't have such laws.
More to the point is that most countries have laws that say that the price a good is advertised at is the price it must be sold at. If someone puts a pricetag on a car saying $10, you're not allowed during or after the sale to add a couple of zeros unless you're selling something extra or the customer agrees to a change or terms.
Also, where I live (Belgium), any shop offering a discount under the terms of "as long as supply lasts", must provide an adequate supply of items to meet the demand of a certain minimum period. The minimum period is determined legally on the type of good. This law was introduced because a lot of stores advertised very cheap items to lure customers, but having only a very limited supply of items (eg. 10 items if 3000 customers showed up). If they cannot supply the product within reasonable amounts, they must supply customers with a similar product for equal price within a certain amount of time (although the customer is not bound to purchasing the replacement item). Most people are however unaware of this and don't file a complaint. There are ways around this law however, by stating that possible errors in advertising lie at fault with the printcompany (or webdesigner), which means that nearly everyone prints an extra line of fine print these days and things are back the way they were before in most cases.
Re:Many similar cases exist (Score:4, Informative)
IF the item was unsolicted. The people who got two box sets for free solicited their products.
Most analogies are wrong (Score:3, Informative)
And "the customers should have noticed the 0.00 price" is not a valid objection either, since it's possible that some customers mixed other articles in their order, which made the total order price nonzero. Who's then to blame a customer who didn't notice that?
Re:Can this possibly be legal? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The wise customer (Score:2, Informative)
Legally - they are totally and 100% in the clear, with IANAL etc
Amazons terms normally state that a contract is concluded when they ship, as at that point the consideration [your credit card] is charged and the goods then ship. If they have shipped the goods they are not at a point where the terms of the contract can be changed - by their OWN Ts&Cs they have formalised the contract, and it is now binding.
Any attempts to charge customers after this point will be considered attempted fraud by CC companies, and me if it happened to me.
Re:The wise customer (Score:4, Informative)
Disclaimer: I've no idea what the position is in the US (and whether it varies State by State). But safe to say your post is not necessarily correct.
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:3, Informative)
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:3, Informative)
The buyer (customers) clearly knew that this deal was too good and an error. Any reasonable person would think so. In this case, the buyer is at fault for knowingly taking advantage of the seller (Amazon) and the seller's unintended sale at this discount. Any judge would find in favor of the seller in this situation. You can use the law to protect yourself but you can't use it to inflict undue harm on to others.
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:3, Informative)
That is irrelevant. Actually, the deal was $X was to be charged to your credit card for items, Y & Z. A deal is very specific. Specific products at a certain price at a certain time under certain conditions.
Think about rebates. The price they advertise is not the price you pay at the register. That is the difference between what you pay at your register and what you get as a check from the rebate at a certain time later if you meet certain elegibility requirements.
Morally, the customer should either return the item or pay for it. Legally, the customer got a great deal, and has done nothing wrong. Legally, Amazon is commiting credit card fraud, and that is between the credit card company and Amazon, not the customer and Amazon.
It's UCC, not FTC (Score:5, Informative)
I am a lawyer but not your lawyer. Do not rely on this, as it is not legal advice, but merely another
Re:Say this were brick-and mortar (Score:1, Informative)