This Should Be Illegal...

Deceptive marketing, a long-standing issue, has intensified, particularly with how retailers present promotional prices. Best Buy.com, for instance, now uses a "compare at" reference price, which seems overly optimistic or even false. This practice is not extended to regions with stricter regulations, suggesting Best Buy's awareness of its questionable nature. This summary will explore how retailers avoid pricing transparency, the spread of this issue, and consumer actions to combat it. The problem extends beyond Best Buy. A monitor listed for $260 off, with a "comparable value," prompts a closer look at the fine print. Best Buy's policy states that the reference price can be for a comparable item, or a price offered by marketplace sellers, manufacturers, suppliers, or other retailers, online or in-store, at any time, even in the future. This allows Best Buy to reference any price, from anyone, anywhere, at any time, to calculate supposed savings. The motivation behind this change is to exploit shoppers' fear of missing out (FOMO) who may not meticulously track prices, making them susceptible to misleading discounts. This issue is not confined to Best Buy. The practice of false reference pricing, also known as deceptive pricing, is regulated by the American FTC. Best Buy has faced lawsuits regarding this, as recently as last year, alleging they offered discounted prices that were not genuinely lower or even higher than recent advertised prices. While one case was dismissed, the underlying issue remains. Notably, Best Buy Canada does not use this "compare at" language, likely due to Canada's stricter regulations requiring retailers to meet specific volume or time tests for ordinary selling prices. However, even there, lawsuits have emerged concerning misrepresentation of regular prices and savings. Walmart's reference pricing, based on the median price within 90 days from Walmart or its marketplace sellers, offers some improvement but still grants significant leeway for representing discounts. Amazon uses a "suggested retail price" provided by manufacturers or sellers if labeled "list price." If it's a "typical price," it's a 90-day median price with no real auditing or transparency. To address these issues, "compare at" reference prices should be banned or mandated to be the manufacturer's advertised MSRP. This wouldn't necessarily lower prices but would provide consumers with transparency to identify genuine deals. Another deceptive marketing tactic is "up to" claims. These can be problematic when deeply discounted items are undesirable or product specifications are highly variable. The Better Business Bureau's guideline, prohibiting "up to" sales where at least 10% of items don't meet the advertised discount, is a sensible approach that needs wider adoption and enforcement by regulatory bodies. "Starting at" pricing, often used to advertise an undesirable basic configuration and then upsell to a usable, more expensive option, is another concern. While some "starting at" prices, like Apple's Mac Mini, offer good value, the ambiguity makes policing difficult. Returning to "compare at," tools like PC Part Picker track pricing across retailers over time, helping consumers determine true value. However, retailers, especially in North America, actively combat such services. Price Zombie, which tracked price history and earned affiliate revenue, was allegedly barred from Amazon's affiliate program for violating rules against showing Amazon prices older than 24 hours, effectively ending its business. Camel Camel Camel, another price tracker, also faces restrictions, leading it to display only Amazon data. In contrast, in the EU, Idealo successfully compares prices across numerous retailers, including Amazon. Alternatives are limited. Honey's Drop List tool tracks price history but isn't comprehensive across retailers and glitches. Google Shopping exists but doesn't prominently display the best deals or Amazon results in the US. Capital One Shopping shows multiple retailers with the best price but lacks price history. To combat these deceptive practices, consumers must get involved. Participating in class action lawsuits, advocating for stricter regulations with consumer advocacy groups, or contacting government representatives are crucial. Supporting businesses that avoid these practices, like ltstore.com and DeleteMe, is also important. DeleteMe is a service that removes personal information from hundreds of data broker and people-search sites, which legally sell personal information. They use in-house technology to remove data and verify its presence before removal, ensuring efficiency and security. DeleteMe is trusted by professionals and offers a 20% discount on consumer plans.