Sleazy Bait and Switch Marketing — Is this legal?
"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and   why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific   discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often   thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and   document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only   for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount   offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent   college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser”   payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A   variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually   thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take   them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s   Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a   financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a ""cost of doing business"" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with ""caveat emptor"" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face).  But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble." But.. what I really want to know.... is it illegal, particularly the   clause REQUIRING a trade in to qualify for the advertised price? The price is always net of all the parts of the deal. As an example they gave the price if you have $4000 trade in. If you have no trade in, or a trade in worth less than 4K, your final price for the new car will be more. Of course how do you know that the trade in value they are giving you is fair. It could be worth 6K but they are only giving you a credit of 4K. If you are going to trade in a vehicle while buying another vehicle the trade in should be a separate transaction. I always get a price quote for selling the old car before visiting the new car dealer. I do that to have a price point that I can judge while the pressure is on at the dealership.. Buying a car is a complex deal. The price, interest rate, length of loan, and the value of the trade in are all moving parts. It is even more complex if a lease is involved. They want to adjust the parts to be the highest profit that you are willing to agree to, while you think that you are getting a good deal. This is the fine print: All advertised amounts include all Hyundai incentives/rebates, dealer   discounts and $2500 additional down from your trade in value. +0% APR   for 72 months on select models subject to credit approval through HMF.   *No payments or 90 days subject to credit approval. Value will be added to end of loan balance. 15MY Sonata - Price excludes tax, title,   license, doc, and dealer fees. MSRP $22085- $2036 Dealer Discount -   $500 HMA Lease Cash - $500 HMA Value Owner Coupon - $1000 HMA Retail   Bonus Cash - $500 HMA Military Rebate - $500 HMA Competitive Owner   Coupon - $400 HMA College Grad Rebate - $500 HMA Boost Program - $4000   Trade Allowance = Net Price $12149. On approved credit. Certain   qualifications apply to each rebate. See dealer for details. Payment   is 36 month lease with $0 due at signing. No security deposit   required. All payment and prices include HMA College Grad Rebate, HMA   Military Rebate, HMA Competitive Owner Coupon and HMA Valued Owner   Coupon. Must be active military or spouse of same to qualify for HMA   Military Rebate. Must graduate college in the next 6 months or within   the last 2 years to qualify for HMA College Grad rebate. Must own   currently registered Hyundai to qualify for HMA Valued Owner Coupon.   Must own qualifying competitive vehicle to qualify for HMA Competitive   Owner Coupon.
"So this situation is fraud. -SumGuy: ""Hey Mr. Target employee can I use this to buy this.""  -Employee: ""Abso-fucking-lutely Sir"". The responsibility lies on the store, not the customer in this situation. Terms of service on things like coupons are not LAWS, they are terms a company is telling you they will accept. For this Company to then accept it makes these people a few bucks richer, not criminals. The customers did not lie or hide what they where doing, and the company accepted it. Good on em I say." "The fact that some women have taken their companies for a ride does not negate the existence of [Title VII protections](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII). Downvote me all you want, but this is *the law*. The practices being described in the article are illegal, as observed by the researchers themselves (who, it's worth noting, are a *law firm*), and expose the involved companies to lawsuits that would cause more financial blowback than making the ""riskier"" hires in the first place." They do state that but it may not mean much. I just read an article where the former NJ attorney general warns that a legal contract like this would trump a statement from the marketing department saying the clause does not apply.   The article was on Bloomberg, I'd cite it if I wasn't too lazy right now. "Even less reason for influencers to tag it then?    The way it works for us is our PR company pretty much gives us a list of their affiliate ""Key Opinion Leaders"" (KOL) with all of their rates.  We then choose a couple after looking at their pages. PR firm sends out product samples then lets us know when the post is up. PR firm pays KOL, we pay PR firm.    So for this to come up as ""advertised"" on insta, my understanding from the above thread is that the KOL needs to tag it. However as the client we would absolutely not want ""Paid"" or ""Sponsored"" to show up if we can help it, it destroys the illusion.   Last thing I will note is what /u/pwnicholson posted about regarding FTC rules. That is fine if you need to tag it for regulatory reasons. We don't in Aus, so it won't happen. In saying that, the data looks juicy so we'd probably do it here and there to see the numbers, but otherwise the 'illusion' is very important imo." Before I answer, you should know a few things about me. I've paid to get into a couple of Network-Marketing/Multi-Level-Marketing franchises, and I made a little money in it. I have worked in financial services sales. I later went on to get my Masters in Business Administration. I've been there, and I know MLMs and Business in theory and practice. There's room for some nuance here, but for the most part: Don't do it! There's no snake oil out there that people can't get on their own. If you can sell it to them, then here's the simple case against it: if you're a good enough salesman to get other people to buy products or franchises from you (and really, you don't care about product sales, you care about franchise sales, because that's how they sold it to you, right?) you can make far more money selling business to business.  If you're a good enough sales manager that you can get good salespeople to buy franchises from you and sell more franchises, you'll make far more money managing salespeople selling business to business.  For the most part, people aren't good at sales, and that likely includes you. Most MLM's are sales groups with bad salespeople leading bad salespeople. It's the blind leading the blind. And as your friends get burned, and your family gets burned, and you start losing everyone who got burned, you'll start to wish you had never done this stuff in the first place. The main reason the above holds true is that the people involved in MLM don't really create any value. They're looking to get a free ride on everyone else in the pyramid beneath them.  There are exceptions, the main ones that come to mind are like Mary Kay, where, ok, mostly women, makeup artists teach women how to apply makeup without looking like a clown, and it's a skill, and it's part of how they create value. And it may well be the best option for someone whose chosen career is a makeup artist. I'm not particularly an exception, but at the age of 17, I sold books door-to-door in Southern Mississippi, mostly to teach myself how to talk to people, since I had grown up with my nose in a book. It turned out that the business was structured like a MLM to encourage the salespeople to become managers, but I had no interest in that, I just wanted to learn people skills. I also blew a couple hundred bucks on franchise fees on other MLMs, mostly because friends were in it - never did I see that money ever again.  Sales is hard work. Teaching people how to sell is even harder, and impossible if you don't know how. If you're good at it, you'll do so much better in a business to business setting. Think about the economics of it. Salespeople get paid on volume of sales. Businesses have a lot more money than consumers. You have to sell to an awful lot more consumers than businesses to make the same amount of money. Think about competition, too. Considering Amway? You're competing with everyone from Walmart to the corner convenience store, and you will be asking everyone and their brother to join up. And many of them have already been pitched it, if they've been around long enough. The bargaining strength of your customers (they have lots of alternatives) and suppliers (their over-priced pricing structure is set in stone) is pretty strong. You have immense direct competition and product substitutes, and anyone else can go into the same business as you. Your competitive position is extremely weak. It's almost guaranteed to fail. You probably don't have the skills, you'll burn your relationships, and you'll make more money doing almost anything else. Note that in the UK at least this scam - not so dissimilar from what you propose - seems be perfectly legal behaviour: Evidence to date is that both of you can expect to walk away without much consequence. it is legal. In fact part of the service is provided by Google that displays the notifications. It's only available on Android which is approx 85% of the market share. It's not targeted advertising using an email address, telephone number, etc. The users smartphone scans for the signal. The user can dismiss a notification and turn the feature off and they opt in to the service during install/update of their OS "Actually there is no law that makes insider trading illegal, except for actual company insiders (people working at the company). Insider trading as you describe is just a court precedent set in the 80s (I think it was the 80s) and it's based on the concept of ""fraud"", whereby you are misappropriating information that you should not have.  So no, insider trading isn't ""illegal"" in that sense, and the jury is out as to whether it's even bad or not for the markets. That doesn't mean I would recommend doing it or really anything even closely resembling it, since they're pretty aggressive about pursuing those cases." This just happened to me to! At target. I have no idea if its a scam but that is the same thing i am thinking. They Lady who told me about it didn't tell me anything about her business. Just to go to the link....which isn't working. Idk its feels pretty shady. She did everything you said above. This makes a lot of sense. So yeah you can’t cheat the FTC anymore but users also can’t cheat you anymore. Essentially that’s what you’re saying right? Also I say “you”  meaning dishonest marketers of which the world is full of. I wasn’t accusing you of being dishonest. I used to work for a company that made apps and we did all of our marketing on Instagram because it was the only thing that had a return on investment. It was dishonest but from the numbers it was literally the only thing that worked for what we could afford as an app development start up because app development certainly isn’t cheap or fast. "I can't give you proper legal advice, but if I called their customer service and used half an hour of my time to wait and explain the situation in detail, and their official response was ""just use the points,"" I would do just that. Of course you would have stronger legal standing if you had recorded their answer, or had it in writing from them. But I don't think spending these points will come crashing down on you. And morally I see absolutely no problem with spending these points; it is not as if you are stealing from someone else. These points can usually be given away in any kind of crazy manner. Sometimes there are lotteries or events where they give away 100,000 points for new customers who open up an account on a specific weekend. Sometimes they give points to customers who want to terminate their contracts as an attempt to coax them into staying. They have given you a lot of points and don't really care. As a result you are probably staying their customer forever – and will most likely tell this story to many friends. This is free advertising for them. Heck, maybe they would even make a news story out of this some day, it could be good publicity. Everyone is essentially getting these points ""for free"" but in fact the company has a business case by improving their image and customer retention with these points. So you can spend these points with a sound mind morally. Legally you would have to contact a lawyer, but I think chances for legal repercussions are small if you have done your duty, informed them and their customer service basically said it's ok." "How were these customers ""cheating""?  It doesn't sound like they were hiding *anything* from Target. It sounds like they made these purchases through the regular channels and Target employees said that what they were doing was OK, so they kept doing it.   That's not cheating, that's taking advantage of a generous offer." "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." To be flippant: it is illegal because it is against the law; there is no considered involved, it just is. To elaborate, part of the illusion of the stock exchange and other market-like entities is that of (apparent) fairness. If I think a stock will go up because it is involved in a growing industry, that is generally public information.  Conversely if I have a dim view of a particular company because of its track record of product launches, that is similarly out in the open. A secret formula is something that I invented or discovered, not (presumably) something that I stole from someone else. To stretch that further: If I notice that Company X stock always moves with Company Y stock, that is indeed something that I have found, that I can try to profit from.  It is secret to me, but not particularly dependent upon information not available to others, just that my interpretation is better. So trading on information in the public domain is fine, as it preserves the principal of fairness I mentioned, whereas inside knowledge breaks that principal. Yes it would be colluding. Most countries have well defined laws to prevent companies including banks from indulging in such activities.