ULTA: Illegal pricing practice

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yeah, but it's the principle of the thing. If there's a state law that says a store has to sell an item at the advertised price, and they refuse to sell it at that price, then it's not about the 1.50, it's about the store breaking the law and expecting you just to accept it.

This reminds me of a story from when I was younger. There was an auto dealership that claimed something to the effect of XX car was the price of a bunch of bananas.

A man came into the dealership with a bunch of bananas, and the dealership had to sell the car to him, because that's how they advertised the price fo the car (and they didn't have disclaimers or anything on the commercial).

[BigRedBeta]

Don't get me wrong, principle is a great thing, but in the end I think there needs to be some cost-benefit analysis that goes into it. This has turned from a mere principle issue to one of vengeance in which SoCalGirl is trying to get someone fired or demoted. Even if she just gets the girl charged with fraudulent sales or whatever the charge is (with a fine of a grand and a year in jail!), is that worth it?

Certainly the law is in place for a good reason to protect consumers (and competition in the marketplace), but I'm just taking the side that there are some things worth fighting for, and for the effort and potential impacts, $1.50 (or essentially a 20oz bottle of soda) seems rather minimal in the scheme of things. Now someone advertising a new car for only $500 then pulling some sort of bait and switch - that's quite a bit different. But this? A little perspective is all I ask...

[navane]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Certainly the law is in place for a good reason to protect consumers (and competition in the marketplace), but I'm just taking the side that there are some things worth fighting for, and for the effort and potential impacts, $1.50 (or essentially a 20oz bottle of soda) seems rather minimal in the scheme of things. Now someone advertising a new car for only $500 then pulling some sort of bait and switch - that's quite a bit different. But this? A little perspective is all I ask...

Ok...at what price cut-off do you think it is appropriate to pursue justice on the basis of principal? $20? $100?

What if I pushed someone's grandmother? Is it ok if I just give a moderate one-handed push to the shoulder or does it not cross the line until I use two hands or until grandma hits the pavement?

At what level of "wrong" does the law kick in?

I could use your logic and say that if $1.50 was "no big deal", then why did the store manager fuss so much about it and refuse to give SoCalGirl the advertised price? $1.50 should have been nothing to the "Prestige Manager". Why should the customer be required to accommodate the mistake of a retailer who broke a law specifically designed for moments like that one?

.....Kelly

[BigRedBeta]

Originally Posted by navane

Ok...at what price cut-off do you think it is appropriate to pursue justice on the basis of principal? $20? $100?

What if I pushed someone's grandmother? Is it ok if I just give a moderate one-handed push to the shoulder or does it not cross the line until I use two hands or until grandma hits the pavement?

At what level of "wrong" does the law kick in?

I could use your logic and say that if $1.50 was "no big deal", then why did the store manager fuss so much about it and refuse to give SoCalGirl the advertised price? $1.50 should have been nothing to the "Prestige Manager". Why should the customer be required to accommodate the mistake of a retailer who broke a law specifically designed for moments like that one?

.....Kelly

Again, my issue with this situation is that it goes well beyond $1.50. SoCalGirl is, or was at least considering, aiming to severely affect the livelihood of this "Prestige Manager".

And I'm not defending the "Prestige Manager" either. No one in this situation has acted (in my opinion) appropriately. This is really coming down the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Is ULTA breaking this law as a policy, or did their stock person simply do a shitty job and not pull the tag when the sale expired? If it was a mistake, then SoCalGirl's response is entirely unwarranted (though the store should have just obliged). If she can prove there is rampant abuse of the concept of a sale, then that's very different. I'm no lawyer, but fraud (which is what I assume this law was put in place to prevent) - seems to me - requires some sort of intent to deceive.

As for a cost guidelines - I'm not going to say that there's a specific $ amount or even a percentage of original cost that's always going to work. Certainly $20 on a $60 item is much different than $20 on a $600 item.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Is ULTA breaking this law as a policy, or did their stock person simply do a shitty job and not pull the tag when the sale expired? If it was a mistake, then SoCalGirl's response is entirely unwarranted (though the store should have just obliged). If she can prove there is rampant abuse of the concept of a sale, then that's very different. I'm no lawyer, but fraud (which is what I assume this law was put in place to prevent) - seems to me - requires some sort of intent to deceive.

I'm sorry, i don't agree. From what I read, SoCalGirl had an appropriate response. Even if it was a stock person's fault for leaving the sign, the manager should abide by the law and allow the sale. Afterall, like some have said $1.50 shouldn't matter.

It's the principle of the thing. SoCalGirl shouldn't just "give up" or leave it alone because the manager refused to allow the sale.

[pbear19]

I think you can make a stand on a case of any monetary value, if the principle is one you believe in. But I wholeheartedly agree with BigRedBeta's sentiment with regards to this statement:

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

She should be fired or at the very least demoted to stock girl or something.

Wishing that someone loses their livelihood over an issue that involved pocket change strikes me as unnecessarily vindictive, especially when there is zero definitive evidence that this is anything other than an isolated incident. Do it so that they follow the rules. Do it so that in the future other people get the benefit of the falsely labeled signs. Do it so that they know that they cannot thumb their noses at the law. Don't do it with the goal of this woman losing her job.

[annabella]

I think if it's an experience you have repeatedly, you could look into pursuing it.
Of course, I also think you have too much time on your hands.

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

^That's illegal in CA too.

I called the customer service number today and was supposed to be called by the district manager. I never heard from her so I'll call back tomorrow to see if I can get her direct number.

So what ended up happening? Were you able to get in contact with the district manager?

[VandalSquirrel]

I had this problem Friday when I was out exchanging gifts and doing a little shopping (it was payday).

No, it wasn't at Ulta, but a certain corporation had two signs in their window, four on a display, and one at the regsiter about a sale, which they neglected to take down. When brought to their corporate HQs attention, they apologized and said they'd send me coupons for a product. How about you not break the law, why would I want coupons for your store when I don't want to go back there? Amusingly enough I had price issues at Wal-mart (I shop there because I am low class ) and Jo-Ann's, and they had no problem honoring their signage and product misplacement.