Argh. The 20% off coupon can't be used for Disney Giftcards afterall. :(

[Gracie09]

I suspect from your comments that you didn't go to law school. What the sign in the store says, and the company's previous use of terms has great "legal significance" and it would be easy to make that point in court. In this case, all you'd have to do to prove the confusion is call a few different managers, some that thought it did include entertainment cards and some that didn't, to legally prove that a customer would be easy confused.

Well you must have missed the reasonable person standard discussion. It's very easy for target to say a reasonable person when looking at a gift card labeled gift card and a coupon saying gift cards are excluded would reasonably conclude the gift card is excluded, regardless of how it's labels for internal accounting purposes. I mean I'm no justice hand but seems there is an argument to be made from the otherwise and it's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

 

[JanaDee]

It's highly likely that this will happen as Target has probably lost thousands overriding these transactions. So, the 5% Red Card and Rx Rewards will likely be gone after this fiasco.

If the cards were supposed to have been discounted then they would have been. Period. There would not have required management intervention of any kind.

Yup. If that happens, you can thank Dis members for that.

 

[sweetdana]

It's highly likely that this will happen as Target has probably lost thousands overriding these transactions. So, the 5% Red Card and Rx Rewards will likely be gone after this fiasco.

If the cards were supposed to have been discounted then they would have been. Period. There would not have required management intervention of any kind.

But, congrats to anyone that got it to work. Savings are savings!

This 20%, is not all that different than last yr.

It is possible, but it is also possible they will continue to lose 5% per 100$, and bring you into the store. (Maybe offer, no discounts, but a 5$ gift card for future purchases, or something.) I do agree they will not be entertainment cards, and memos will go out, but in and by itself, they do the red card successfully, because people spend 200$ on other things while saving 50$..

Honestly I spent 520$ ( after 20% off) on other stuff, besides the gift cards. I realize they are not profiting, since I bought 5K, but had I only bought 1K in cards, I think they would have. Had the discounts been 5% or 10%... or I got 5% or 10% in gift cards for future purchases it would have been closer.

 

[Eastern]

I find it scary that anyone would follow "legal advice" posted on the Disboards. Anyone can claim to be anything from the privacy of one's own keyboard.

When is a gift card not a gift card? When justifying a discount on the Disboards.

If the cards were supposed to have been discounted then they would have been. Period. There would not have required management intervention of any kind.

Who is following anyone's legal advice?

I have been involved in several consumer fraud type cases. It sounds harsh, but it is basically a situation in which the consumer feels that they have not been treated fairly by a business. You try to reason with the business, and when they do not respond to your satisfaction, you get a lawyer, or file in small claims court, or write to your Attorney General, all of which I have done and have worked out favorably.

It's really not about what Target meant to do, it's about how they advertised a coupon and the parameters of the future purchase.

As far as requiring 'management intervention', imo, and I am not a lawyer, it is the terms of the ad which are at fault and up for dispute, not how the coupon was ultimately handled at the point of sale.

I knew from the beginning that someone was going to get this deal one way or another, but I never thought it would be handled so inconsistently on so many occasions. That alone reinforces the 'bad ad' claim. If it was a properly worded ad there wouldn't be so many interpretations.

 

[supersnoop]

Who is following anyone's legal advice?

I have been involved in several consumer fraud type cases. It sounds harsh, but it is basically a situation in which the consumer feels that they have not been treated fairly by a business. You try to reason with the business, and when they do not respond to your satisfaction, you get a lawyer, or file in small claims court, or write to your Attorney General, all of which I have done and have worked out favorably.

It's really not about what Target meant to do, it's about how they advertised a coupon and the parameters of the future purchase.

One of the posters above claimed to be a lawyer. No lawyer I know would every offer legal advice on a forum without a huge disclaimer.

As for Target; the problem, as I see it, is that what they said isn't what you heard. They've been very clear on the coupon and on other promotions. People look at the results are assume they said something that they didn't say. Just because someone can't understand the difference doesn't mean that the terms are "confusing." It just means they didn't bother to read the terms.

 

[Eastern]

Well you must have missed the reasonable person standard discussion. It's very easy for target to say a reasonable person when looking at a gift card labeled gift card and a coupon saying gift cards are excluded would reasonably conclude the gift card is excluded, regardless of how it's labels for internal accounting purposes. I mean I'm no justice hand but seems there is an argument to be made from the otherwise and it's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

But they don't consider them 'gift cards' when using the 5% Target discount or the pharmacy rewards, so that does create confusion.

Target has a history of not counting them as gift cards for those discounts. Why should it be different for the coupon? I'm just thinking like an average consumer, not one who reads every word of fine print or who is speculating on what Target might mean.

Consumer fraud law is also typically consumer-friendly. If someone makes a reasonable argument in small claims, in my experience, they find for the consumer.

 

[Eastern]

One of the posters above claimed to be a lawyer. No lawyer I know would every offer legal advice on a forum without a huge disclaimer.

As for Target; the problem, as I see it, is that what they said isn't what you heard. They've been very clear on the coupon and on other promotions. People look at the results are assume they said something that they didn't say. Just because someone can't understand the difference doesn't mean that the terms are "confusing." It just means they didn't bother to read the terms.

Well, not in terms of past experience. Lots of people know you can get the 5% off by using your RED card and 5% off with pharmacy rewards, which is basically a coupon, why should it be any different?

It's not always about the consumer reading terms & conditions. Sometimes it's about a reasonable expectation. I don't think that expecting to use the coupon was unreasonable.

 

[undertheradar]

Who is following anyone's legal advice?

I have been involved in several consumer fraud type cases. It sounds harsh, but it is basically a situation in which the consumer feels that they have not been treated fairly by a business. You try to reason with the business, and when they do not respond to your satisfaction, you get a lawyer, or file in small claims court, or write to your Attorney General, all of which I have done and have worked out favorably.

It's really not about what Target meant to do, it's about how they advertised a coupon and the parameters of the future purchase.

As far as requiring 'management intervention', imo, and I am not a lawyer, it is the terms of the ad which are at fault and up for dispute, not how the coupon was ultimately handled at the point of sale.

I knew from the beginning that someone was going to get this deal one way or another, but I never thought it would be handled so inconsistently on so many occasions. That alone reinforces the 'bad ad' claim. If it was a properly worded ad there wouldn't be so many interpretations.

Even if Target had specified Disney cards, there would be people pushing the limit to see if they could still obtain the discount. People have posted on this thread of going to multiple stores until they got someone who would override the coupon. Best policy that Target could enforce would be to end all discounts on gift cards, giftcards, prepaid cards, entertainment cards, etc. Then all of this foolishness about "bad ad" would be null and void.

 

[Eastern]

Even if Target had specified Disney cards, there would be people pushing the limit to see if they could still obtain the discount. People have posted on this thread of going to multiple stores until they got someone who would override the coupon. Best policy that Target could enforce would be to end all discounts on gift cards, giftcards, prepaid cards, entertainment cards, etc. Then all of this foolishness about "bad ad" would be null and void.

I don't understand your particular passion in defending a huge corporation from the big bad consumers, but ok.

Look, if you go to 5 Target stores with crazy requests, you will be turned away each and every time. The fact that some people are able to get their requests met shows that the ad is problematic. They are not going to give customers hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise for free, just to get them off their back, unless there is a fundamental problem in interpretation of the 'facts'.

 

[Gracie09]

Well, not in terms of past experience. Lots of people know you can get the 5% off by using your RED card and 5% off with pharmacy rewards, which is basically a coupon, why should it be any different? It's not always about the consumer reading terms & conditions. Sometimes it's about a reasonable expectation. I don't think that expecting to use the coupon was unreasonable.

Because they are different programs. They were used in conjunction with a red card. This promotion was based on sales on one day and coupon with the terms and conditions was provided. Stores run promotions with different terms and conditions often. That's why you have to read the terms and conditions for the individual promotion. I receive coupons all the time for other stores and sometimes certain items are included in one promotion that aren't included in the next.

 

[undertheradar]

I don't understand your particular passion in defending a huge corporation from the big bad consumers, but ok.

Look, if you go to 5 Target stores with crazy requests, you will be turned away each and every time. The fact that some people are able to get their requests met shows that the ad is problematic. They are not going to give customers hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise for free, just to get them off their back, unless there is a fundamental problem in interpretation of the 'facts'.

You do realize that the "huge corporation" has the purpose to provide investment return to it's shareholders? The "big bad consumers," as you call them, are taking advantage of employees and those consumers should be able to read the specific wording that gift cards are not included and that these are Disney Gift Cards involved. Sorry, the attempt to justify the discount is an attempt to tell Target how to do business. The consumer getting a 20% discount on an excluded item is stealing.

 

[htmlkid]

You bought $10,000 worth of gift cards?

Yes wanted to cover this years DVC MF's, next years fees and a summer cruise.

 

[djmeredith]

Well you must have missed the reasonable person standard discussion. It's very easy for target to say a reasonable person when looking at a gift card labeled gift card and a coupon saying gift cards are excluded would reasonably conclude the gift card is excluded, regardless of how it's labels for internal accounting purposes. I mean I'm no justice hand but seems there is an argument to be made from the otherwise and it's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

I didn't say it was cut and dried, it would depend on the law in any given state and what a specific jury or judge decides based on the entire set of facts presented in a case. It is the non legally trained individuals on here who keep screaming "the cards say 'gift cards' on them so you are an idiot to argue otherwise" that seem to think this issue is cut and dried. The law is never (or very rarely) that clear cut, that is why there are so many attorneys who make a living litigating issues. I'm merely pointing out that there are (or could be) legal issues surrounding the "semantics" (as some people have called it) of the printed coupon and the labeling of the items in the store. I've also repeatedly encouraged people to educate themselves about the consumer protection laws in their state so they will be armed with knowledge when entering a store during a promotion like this. Consumers have a right to demand what is advertised: either in the store and/or through their state's Attorney General.

 

[supersnoop]

Well, not in terms of past experience. Lots of people know you can get the 5% off by using your RED card and 5% off with pharmacy rewards, which is basically a coupon, why should it be any different?

It's not always about the consumer reading terms & conditions. Sometimes it's about a reasonable expectation. I don't think that expecting to use the coupon was unreasonable.

The terms listed on the coupon are different than the terms listed for the RED card savings. Like I said; you think they said something that they didn't say. They're very clear, but people only seem to hear what they want to hear.

I never had any expectation that a coupon would work on a gift card. I don't think any reasonable person would expect that. The only variable here is the RED card savings, which had different terms.

 

[djmeredith]

One of the posters above claimed to be a lawyer. No lawyer I know would every offer legal advice on a forum without a huge disclaimer.

As for Target; the problem, as I see it, is that what they said isn't what you heard. They've been very clear on the coupon and on other promotions. People look at the results are assume they said something that they didn't say. Just because someone can't understand the difference doesn't mean that the terms are "confusing." It just means they didn't bother to read the terms.

No offered any legal advice. The only advice given was common sense advice: educate yourself on the consumer protection laws in your state and contact your state's Attorney General's office if you ever have concerns about a retailer's practice.

 

[htmlkid]

But they don't consider them 'gift cards' when using the 5% Target discount or the pharmacy rewards, so that does create confusion.

Target has a history of not counting them as gift cards for those discounts. Why should it be different for the coupon? I'm just thinking like an average consumer, not one who reads every word of fine print or who is speculating on what Target might mean.

Consumer fraud law is also typically consumer-friendly. If someone makes a reasonable argument in small claims, in my experience, they find for the consumer.

The other issue that made it confusing from a consumers stand point was that many of the displays in Target that held the cards were labeled above the hook that held the cards DISNEY $50 ENTERTAINMENT CARD.

 

[sweetdana]

Yes wanted to cover this years DVC MF's, next years fees and a summer cruise.

 

[djmeredith]

Yup. If that happens, you can thank Dis members for that.

No, you can thank Target's CEO/CFO/lawyers etc. who did a terrible job in limiting the company's losses. It's this blame the consumer mentality that bothers me. Consumers have a right to demand what is advertised, that is why consumer protection laws came into existence over the years. This coupon and its accompanying ads could have and should have been more clear IF Target intended to limit the discount beyond the actual listed items.

It's interesting that everyone is assuming that Target is losing tons of money because of these Disney gift cards. In reality, it is possible that Target pays less than retail value for those cards, just like they do with all the manufactured products on their shelves. They sell products at a marked up price to make a profit. The most I've seen anyone claim they saved on the Disney cards was around $1,000 total. Even if that total amount was a loss to Target, that is a drop in the bucket to a multi-billion dollar corporation like Target.

 

[ArmchairDetective]

It absolutely baffles me how any rational person can say, with sound mind, that the Disney cards are not gift cards.

Noun: A gift card is a restricted monetary equivalent or scrip that is issued by retailers or banks to be used as an alternative to a non-monetary gift.

Please explain to me how they are not gift cards.

 

[djmeredith]

It absolutely baffles me how any rational person can say, with sound mind, that the Disney cards are not gift cards.

Noun: A gift card is a restricted monetary equivalent or scrip that is issued by retailers or banks to be used as an alternative to a non-monetary gift.

Please explain to me how they are not gift cards.

As previous posters have said many times, Target itself does not use this definition. If they did, there would have been absolutely no confusion amongst Target's own store managers or amongst the employees of the service line which someof those managers called.