When does a pricing error become false advertising?
"It's definitely annoying, but it's not necessarily false advertising. There is no rule or law that says they have to fix a pricing error at all, let alone within a certain period of time. Unfortunately they have no obligation to do business with you unless they take (and keep) your money. If they canceled the order and returned your money you have no binding agreement with them.  On top of that, in the US... 'misleading advertising' usually refers to ""Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities"" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)). The main criteria that they evaluate before taking legal action is whether or not someone has suffered harm or loss due to the reliance on the bad information. But you're in Europe. The EU ideas behind misleading advertising tend to focus a lot more on comparing one product to someone else's and making subjective claims or false promises. Pricing does come up, but still, you need to have an ability to prove that you suffered harm or a loss from the business' actions.  Even if you were able to prove that, to force the business to change its price catalog, you would need to go through legal proceedings, demonstrate the harm that you've sustained, and then have a judge decide in your favor and order the supplier to comply. My guess is that it's just not worth it for you, but you haven't specified if this is just an annoying shoe-shopping experience or if you are regularly experiencing bait-and-switch tactics from a supplier that is a crucial part of a business operation.  If it's the former, just like a physical shop reserves the right to kick you out if you're not behaving, (but usually doesn't because they'd like to keep you as a customer), an online shop can update its prices whenever they like. They can change their prices too, and cancel orders.  If it's the latter, then start putting together some documentation on how many times this has happened and how it has damaged your business. But before you get on the warpath I would recommend you look for another place to buy whatever you have in mind, or else try a pound of sugar in your approach to this supplier... My own business experience has shown that can go a lot way in figuring out a mutually beneficial resolution. If you want to see a bit more...  Here is the EU Justice Commission's website on false advertising, Here is a PDF leaflet from the UK Office of Fair Trading that spells out what is explicitly not allowed from a business by way of advertising & business practices."
&gt;I don’t really like when apps show me ads pasted all over their interface, so this option was instantly crossed out.  I did a double-take when the author said the above. It's an article about using empirical evidence to set price and he discards an option based on personal preference. If an offered price is below what people are willing to sell for, it is simply ignored. (What happens if I offer to buy lots of cars as long as I only have to pay $2 each? Same thing.) Dispute the charge. Receiving the wrong product is grounds for dispute. There are a few scenarios I see possible:  1. Risk parameters in the algo were set very conservatively. Putting quotes out and canceling them is very common.   2. It was looking to exploit situations where someone rips through the book with a market order.  3. It was reacting too slowly to signals, and chasing opportunities that had already passed.   Other comments: What do you believe front running is? Your version differs from the textbook definition.   Quote taxes are more effective than minimum order durations. I wrote about how that works in a previous post in this thread. We actually have [a thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/GroceryStores/comments/10sldg/im_so_tired_of_this_grocery_shrinkray_bullshit/) about that going on right now in r/grocerystores.    It is a fine line to walk.  No one wants to visibly raise prices.  But they are still showing price per pound/ounce on the tag (right?  Every store I have been in shows that).  The consumer is partly to blame for allowing those shenanigans. When I ran a gas station, our price was largely set by our neighbors-- the other gas stations in the area. We couldn't go below the current cost of replacement gas, but other than that we wanted to be at .05 over the average. (We got away with charging more because we were the last station on a major road.) Everybody else did the same thing. Also, we only set prices once a day, early in the morning before the commuter rush. Changing prices while somebody is pumping gas Was Not Done, for fairly obvious reasons. So, you'd get these ripples of price-changing, as one station changed its price, and then all its neighbors would react to that the next day, and then THEIR neighbors would change the day after that, and so on. "Ah to be clear, ""bad customer"" here means someone that ends up costing the company more money than they are worth to you.  The article explictly says that a lot of the problems that Bob had were nothing to do with their product." As I understand it, the correct price is any point between the minimum the seller is willing to accept and the maximum the buyer is willing to pay.  These values are influenced by a number of factors, including market conditions, cost of production and immediate need. There's also a sense of fairness and expectation that influences these numbers. People don't want to pay a much higher price or accept a much lower price than they think the other party *should* agree to.  For example, in the event of a sudden actual or anticipated shortage in some commodity consumer good, say... gasoline, it would make sense for sellers to raise the price significantly. In the short term, consumers of gasoline are very price-insensitive and most will pay more than double the usual price to obtain it. This behavior is commonly seen as unfair on the part of the seller - to the point that certain variations of it are illegal in some jurisdictions. Economists would describe it as rational.  Oddly, people don't seem to be as upset about buyers offering low prices in the event of a sudden increase in highly motivated sellers. When people do tend to get upset is if the buyers have a profit motive; they know the price decrease is temporary and are willing to buy and hold the asset to make a profit later. Even so, it seems to me that it's much rarer for such behavior to be illegal.  The underlying objection, as far as I can tell is to what is perceived as greed. You are confusing manufacturing cost and listed price. They are being sold for less than listed price. There is no way they are being sold for 1/3rd of manufacturing cost. They could be sold for less than manufacturing cost but future support will be factored into that sale so they would still be a loss leader. The sales manager and/or finance manager applied a rebate that did not apply.  It's their fault.  They have internal accounts to handle these situations as they do come up from time to time.  The deal is done.  They have no legal ground. This has happened to me several times while trying to travel. See a flight listed for one price, go through the process and it ends up being 50-100 more. Not sure which airlines just in general. I dont see how 2 seperate sites can have the same price problem. and what changes in the 5-10 minutes it takes someone to enter their info? do gas and costs go up that much in 10 minutes? Just like extra ticket fees and everything....i just wish companies would start putting the FULL price up front. extra fees and all. Just the opposite, if you can, offer all prices! Make a premium product, and regular one, a lite version, and so on. Capture all price points.  The premium version's price gives you anchoring so your less expensive product will appear cheap even if it isn't.  This also gives users an upgrade path so the way to full price is baby steps. "However, it also anti-correlates: advertising these features of their product lets them charge more, and the higher price means they can afford better inputs. And customers who are willing to spend extra money on ""natural"" are also more willing to spend extra money on taste." What you found is that when your were on website X on day y when you clicked on the link they told you to buy 7 stocks and you performed an experiment, but the values went down. Somebody else on website A on day B saw a lightly different list, they may have been flat. But if you were on website W on day D that list hit the jackpot. Which of the three decided that the people running the ad knew what they were talking about? They could have tailored the list based on the nature of the website. Sports and recreation ones on ESPN, high tech on a computer focus site. They could have varied the size of the lit, they could have varied the way they described their analysis. They could have even varied the name of the expert to make it sound familiar or authoritative.  What you found was a marketing plan. It may have been a scam, or it may have been just a way to try and convince you they know what they were doing. If you clicked on the wrong list, they probably lost you as a potential customer, unless you can convince yourself that they were close, and deserve a second look.... A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;