Woman suing over $1.52

[bluesaturn]

I don't think it's worth it to sue over $1.52. However there have been many, many complaints about Target's coupon practices. Particularly register glitches, and corporate doesn't seem particularly concerned about making things right. It's a waste of time and money to sue, but I do think Target needs to get it together.

 

[hambirg]

I don't understand why Target is wrong for doing that though. They sell the product for $1.02 so they take off $1.02. There are other stores that don't give overage too. I'm afraid the only thing the class action suit will do if raise prices or be less coupon friendly.

That's not what they were doing. . .it's kind of complicated. But here is the latest scenario that was coming up. . .eh. . never mind, I will just copy and paste it form another site:

THE $10 INVISIBLE MANUFACTURER COUPON GIFT CARD DEAL GLITCH
This is what I have named this beast of a coupon glitch. And here’s what I know:

#1. It only applies to Gift Card Deals
while there are a couple other glitches going on- this invisible $10 only seems to affect Gift Card Deals

#2. When items prompting a Gift Card are scanned- the register automatically applies what I believe it sees as a $10 manufacturer coupon to your transaction. It does not seem to matter how many items you need to buy- whether it is 2, 3, 4 or more items- the glitch remains constant at $10 per deal.

#3. Target Coupons appear to scan just fine against this $10 glitch.
There are some Target coupons that behave badly on their own- this has nothing to do with the $10 glitch. When you have a pleasant, working, scannable Target Coupon, the computer SEEMS to accept it in a Gift Card deal no matter your total, which is why I believe this $10 is applied as a manufacturer’s coupon.

#4. Total Transaction Value after the glitch must meet or exceed your actual coupon value:
If you do not have enough item value to cover your coupon value after the glitch- manufacturer coupons will not scan properly. If you are doing a gift card deal you must pretend (along with the register) that someone took a $10 manufacturer and scanned it already, thereby reducing how much room you have to use other manufacturer coupons.

#5. Employees cannot force your manufacturer’s coupons through:
While many times your manufacturer’s coupons can be entered in as Target Coupons and be fine. All stores are definitely not willing to do this. And as far as I know- there is nothing they can do to force your MQs through as MQs. The computer absolutely will not allow it for the sole reason that according to it- you don’t have anything left to use a coupon on.

#6. The amount of the Glitch may vary depending on the Gift Card Amount Issued:
If you are being awarded a $10 Gift Card for purchasing an item(s)- this $10 Glitch may now become a $20 glitch- so keep that in mind. The total amount of the glitch will likely be twice the amount of the Gift Card being earned.
For many of us- we don’t encounter these problems because we are doing a whole shop at Target, there are plenty of items to absorb all the coupons we want to use. Where people run into trouble is when they are only doing Gift Card Deals in their order with little or nothing else in their transaction. If you are just interested in grabbing Gift Card Deals- you can either hope that your store will push some of your coupons through as Target Coupons- OR you can apply the following formula to a deal you want to do:


Add up the total cost of the items you are buying to get a gift card deal BEFORE coupons
Now MINUS the invisible $10 and you will get your MAGIC NUMBER
This magic number is how much value in coupons you can use without problems.
If you have LESS total value in coupons than the magic number you have no worries
If you have MORE total value in coupons than the magic number, you will need to purchase other items in your transaction to absorb the remaining coupon value.

EXAMPLE #1- I want to do this deal:
FREE $5 Gift Card wyb any 5 Select Glade Holiday Air Care Items*
So I decide to buy 5 Glass Candle Holders = $14.95
MINUS invisible $10 = $4.95. SO $4.95 is my magic number.
I have (5) $1/1 coupons I want to use = $5. This is more than my magic number, so I need the difference (.05 cents) in merchandise to absorb my remaining coupon value. If I don’t- then the 1st 4 coupons will scan fine, and the 5th will scan at .95 cents because that’s all the computer sees me having available to use a coupon on. So I buy a banana or whatever for at least .05 cents or more and I am fine.

EXAMPLE #2- I want to do this deal:
FREE $5 Gift Card wyb any 3 Select Dial Soap or Body Wash Items $3.99*
So I decide to buy 3 Dial Body Wash = $11.97
MINUS invisible $10 = $1.97. SO $1.97 is my magic number.
I have (3) $1/1 coupons I want to use = $3. This is more than my magic number, so I need the difference ($1.03) in merchandise to absorb my remaining coupon value. If I don’t- then the 1st coupon will scan fine, the 2nd will scan at .97 cents, and the 3rd at $0.00. So instead I buy a dozen eggs for $1.39 and all 3 coupons scan normal.
EXAMPLE #3- I want to do this deal:

FREE $5 Gift Card wyb any 2 Arm & Hammer Cat Litter $12.99*
So I decide to buy 2 Arm & Hammer Cat Litter = $25.95
MINUS invisible $10 = $15.95. SO $15.95 is my magic number.
I have (2) $1/1 coupons I want to use = $2. This is LESS than my magic number, so I dont need to do anything and my coupons will scan just fine.
I also want to add in another way to look at this whole thing that may be easier for some to remember. I know I tend to be over-analytical- and perhaps the following way that Derek has of looking at it will work better for some:

Just remember that your total cannot go below 2x the amount of the gift card earned when using manufacturers coupons. So say for example you earn one $5 gift card, your total cannot go below $10 using manufacturer’s coupons. If your MQs will take you below this $10 they will either need to be pushed through as Target coupons, or you will need more items to absorb them. Use your Target coupons LAST, as these can take your total below the $10. This will apply to each deal you do- so remember- if you are earning two $5 Gift Cards, now you can’t go below $20 and so on.

So what Target was doing is coupon fraud and they have known about it for some time. I'm actually glad this is coming up now, because it was a major headache to try and use your coupons at Target. . .and their lame excuses were getting pretty old. . .all the while collecting the full amount from the manufacturers.

 

[SereneOne]

I wish people would read the case involving the coffee and McDonalds instead of using it as an example of an over litigious society. The corporation did something wrong suing is the only recourse we have to change things. Target has been cheating people who use coupons for quite some time. A lot of these coupons are manufacture coupons, where the only credit a costumer for a $1.02 on a $1.50 coupon, they send that coupon of to the manufacturer to receive a $1.50. Target sat on this knowledge for sometime, I imagine that this suit will become a class action suit and Target may change they way the do business in the future.

Not only that, the woman was burnt so severely it took the skin off of her, it was not overly litigious!

 

[bumbershoot]

The bolding is why I don't think I have a problem with this lawsuit. Normally I do. But they admit to knowing about the glitch for months. That to me says that they were knowingly ripping their customers off. They only fixed it after she filed the lawsuit. Think of how long it would have gone on.

Interesting point.




*********
McD's:

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

79 year old woman, passenger in a car, went to put cream in her coffee, it spilled, she had to have skin grafts in/near her genital region.

She *asked* for 20K. McD's offered $800.

No one knows what she got, because it was made confidential. The jury offered her one thing, it was reduced, and in that amount the amount was reduced by 20% to reflect that she did have a responsibility as well. But she could have gotten $5, we don't know, because it is confidential.

Any lawyer I've ever known (and I know good, nice, kind ones who work their rear ends off) has said that the McD's case is NOT a case for tort reform.




And anyone can FILE a suit. Where tort reform comes in is how far down the line it goes. Isn't this article just about a suit being *filed*?

 

[PaulaSB12]

I wish people would read the case involving the coffee and McDonalds instead of using it as an example of an over litigious society. The corporation did something wrong suing is the only recourse we have to change things. Target has been cheating people who use coupons for quite some time. A lot of these coupons are manufacture coupons, where the only credit a costumer for a $1.02 on a $1.50 coupon, they send that coupon of to the manufacturer to receive a $1.50. Target sat on this knowledge for sometime, I imagine that this suit will become a class action suit and Target may change they way the do business in the future.

And where was the woman's responsibility in putting a cup of hot coffee between her legs to open the lid of the coffee? the car was parked she should have just held th coffee and used her other hand its not hard to do and she didn't get $3 million she only got $640,000.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Actually, I'm surprised the California Attorney General hasn't stepped in and started a criminal investigation. And, no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Agreed. I think that they will be also reimbursing the manufacturers for this too. They were reimbursed for money they did not lose.

Sorry OP, but I have to agree with these people. A company knew about a computer glitch that was erroneously bringing in money in their favor and they did nothing about it until someone brought a lawsuit.

This is an ethical issue and Target should have been sued. Fraud is fraud is fraud whether you're speaking of hundreds of thousands of dollars or a buck fifty-two. Target should have to forfeit all those extra dollars they received as a result of their "computer glitch" and should incur a fine to prevent this from happening again.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Not only that, the woman was burnt so severely it took the skin off of her, it was not overly litigious!

If I do something stupid like trying to take a coffee cup lid of by putting the cup between my legs, and I have done a few stupid acts (4 broken toes for example) I take responisbility for my own actions not think oh loads of money. The judge obviously agreed because he cut the award which went further down on appeal. There is a couple of things missing these days
1 common sense where is the logic of putting coffee between your legs to open a cup
2 personal responisbility she is the one who decided to do something so patently stupid.

 

[We_Love_Disney]

If I do something stupid like trying to take a coffee cup lid of by putting the cup between my legs, and I have done a few stupid acts (4 broken toes for example) I take responisbility for my own actions not think oh loads of money. The judge obviously agreed because he cut the award which went further down on appeal. There is a couple of things missing these days
1 common sense where is the logic of putting coffee between your legs to open a cup
2 personal responisbility she is the one who decided to do something so patently stupid.

The woman was 79 at the time. Would a woman of say 40 be as burned? Her skin had to have been much thinner due to her age.
Had she never had McDonald's coffee? Didn't she know that it was hot?
"The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit"
(Specifications from ncausa.org)

 

[Becky2005]

The world we live in.

Pretty much & it's why I pretty much don't trust anyone because anyone will sue you for anything. Not only that but I'm not one to think in criminal cases "gee the first thing they did was get a lawyer, therefore they must be guilty because why would you need one so fast otherwise". I personally, think those are the smart ones because "people" in general are not to be trusted & they would just as soon rake you over the coals & especially if someone can see dollar signs!

 

[PaulaSB12]

The woman was 79 at the time. Would a woman of say 40 be as burned? Her skin had to have been much thinner due to her age.
Had she never had McDonald's coffee? Didn't she know that it was hot?
"The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit"
(Specifications from ncausa.org)

Unless she was ill through her age then yes she should know that coffee is hot.

 

[mhsjax]

The bolding is why I don't think I have a problem with this lawsuit. Normally I do. But they admit to knowing about the glitch for months. That to me says that they were knowingly ripping their customers off. They only fixed it after she filed the lawsuit. Think of how long it would have gone on.

I sort of agree with you. I don't think that the lady should get any monetary benefit from this, but if Target os only giving part of the value for the coupon yet is getting the full amount from the manufacturer, isn't that a problem? Yes I realize that they only shorted the customer a dollar and a few cents, but Target made more money than they were entitled to, and to me that is wrong, especially if they knew it was a problem. Now I wouldn't sue, but if I found out that it had been an on going thing with Target, I would probably call my local news and let them send out one of their consumer affairs reporters.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

At first I thought you were talking millions, lol.

I guess I don't have a problem with this lawsuit if the company was shown to be shortchanging customers via an exisiting problem they knew wasn't right. Obviously, $1.52 is small peanuts. But when you look at the bigger picture, not just with Target but with other companies, the implications are way more substantial and far reaching and ultimately it benefits us all as consumers that compliance is forced. It's unfortunate that companies "have" to be forced to do things the right way, but it seems that's what it's become.

 

[sparklynails23]

I've had coffee from Starbucks (twice) that was so hot it melted the glue in the cup and leaked through the seams. That's too hot. Part of the problem is I like my coffee black, so it has no cream to cool it.

As for Target, they won't end up paying a settlement that's as great as the extra money they've made on the coupons. I'm sure they were just waiting for a lawsuit before they fixed the computer "glitch."

 

[C.Ann]

Oh, C.Ann... YES! Lets start a mutli-defandant class-action lawsuit!

I am sure, like YOUR neighbor, MY neighbors leaves blow not only into MY yard, but everyone in my yard and the adjacent STREETS!!!

And no, my leaves fall on my yard and my yard only and STAY there... because I tell my tree to mind my neighbors, and my neighbors let THEIR trees go wild!

There's only 2 minor glitches with this one though..

(1) I love to rake leaves - but my doctors won't allow it anymore..

(2) The work then actually falls on my Dson-in-law instead.. However, we have such a great relationship, I'm sure he would be more than willing to share whatever we got from the lawsuit...

 

[dismom2]

Sometimes people sue for the principal of the matter, not because of the amount. I think if Target was aware, for months, about this 'glitch', they should have some repercussions. When you take into consideration how many times they got away with profiting off of this glitch, that amount could be very significant in favor of Targets profits. Perhaps the person suing is doing so because they realize this, and maybe she is doing this on behalf of everyone being ripped off, and/or the mere fact that target is being unethical. Someone has to stand up for what is right.

Personally, I don't always go over my receipts with a fine-toothed comb--mostly because I usually purchase large amounts at a time, and if the difference isn't obvious and 'stand out' I simply don't always notice.

Also, some stores do have receipts that are very difficult to read. Not saying that Target's are-- but there is one store, can't recall which one at the moment, that if you use a coupon, instead of taking off the total price of the coupon at the end, what this store does is take a little bit of the coupon price off each item you purchase. If the item was also on sale, I'm telling you, you have to really study that receipt hard in order to see if you were charged correctly. Most stores are not like this, but some are. Perhaps they make it so confusing because they don't want to make it easy for people to notice if something was rung up incorrectly. Much like trying to decipher some of the bills that come in the mail. DH and I are both college grads and we are not totally ignorant, yet there are things we have difficulty reading, and we also believe that some businesses know exactly what they are doing when it benefits them and not the consumer. It's not always a slip-up.

I've never sued anyone, but I actually think it's a good thing when people stand up to businesses on principal. Everyone should be happy about it because they are representing all the little people.

*That's not to say that there are some really frivolous lawsuits out there---I do not agree with those at all.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[cm8]

The bolding is why I don't think I have a problem with this lawsuit. Normally I do. But they admit to knowing about the glitch for months. That to me says that they were knowingly ripping their customers off. They only fixed it after she filed the lawsuit. Think of how long it would have gone on.

exactly, and they are not the only ones!!

 

[barkley]

there may be some court rulings already on the books in california that could bolster this woman's class action case.

i seem to remember back in the 90's one of the major grocery chains near us in northern california (not sure but i think it might have been albertsons) got popped big time because their registers were doing something fluky that ended up overcharging customers (and it involved coupons too). if i remember right they ended up getting slammed by the state for consumer fraud in part because it was found that they knew about the glitch in their system but had'nt taken steps to have their staff manualy fix the problem during transactions pending the fix to their registers.

i remember that at one point the grocery store was insisting that the issue had been corrected months earlier, but some reporters from different newspapers and tv stations hit a bunch of the stores in different areas, and many of them found that when they reviewed their receipts the overcharges/insufficient crediting was still occuring. that REALY ticked off the judge.




someone mentioned these kinds of lawsuits potentialy biting the consumer in the tush (store in retaliation discontinuing taking coupons). this happend to an extent in a city we used to live near. the city had REALY strict laws on gambling, and one of their big no-no's was buisnesses that had promotions where if you made a minimum purchase you got an entry into a raffle or lottery (if they had given the entry free it was fine-the city saw requring a minimum purchase to get the entry akin to selling entries). the city was VERY proactive in educating buisnesses about this so it was no big secret.

the gap did a big nationwide promotion one year that entailed one of these minimum purchase=lottery entry and the city prosecuted. city won and the gap got a massive fine. in retaliation (to this day) that city's gap store always has a different ad than any other gap-with prices just a bit higher and absent some of the realy great sales. since the gap has other stores in different cities nearby they figure their consumers will go there if they still want to shop with them, and the city that prosecuted them is just losing out on their share of the buisness taxes.

 

[hulagirl87]

I read an article about this back in September and at the time they said it was a "glitch in their system and they were working on getting it fixed." so this isn't the first time that I have heard about this happening at Target and I have even experienced it myself. I had a $2.50 coupon and it only took off $1.99. I didn't notice it until I got home and then didn't really give it a second thought. I guess you have to pick your battles. There are certainly things that I will write emails about and "fight" about, but there are also times where I realize that things are human error (ok, and sometimes stupidity ) and I just have to let them go.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Sometimes people sue for the principal of the matter, not because of the amount. I think if Target was aware, for months, about this 'glitch', they should have some repercussions. When you take into consideration how many times they got away with profiting off of this glitch, that amount could be very significant in favor of Targets profits. Perhaps the person suing is doing so because they realize this, and maybe she is doing this on behalf of everyone being ripped off, and/or the mere fact that target is being unethical. Someone has to stand up for what is right.

Personally, I don't always go over my receipts with a fine-toothed comb--mostly because I usually purchase large amounts at a time, and if the difference isn't obvious and 'stand out' I simply don't always notice.

Also, some stores do have receipts that are very difficult to read. Not saying that Target's are-- but there is one store, can't recall which one at the moment, that if you use a coupon, instead of taking off the total price of the coupon at the end, what this store does is take a little bit of the coupon price off each item you purchase. If the item was also on sale, I'm telling you, you have to really study that receipt hard in order to see if you were charged correctly. Most stores are not like this, but some are. Perhaps they make it so confusing because they don't want to make it easy for people to notice if something was rung up incorrectly. Much like trying to decipher some of the bills that come in the mail. DH and I are both college grads and we are not totally ignorant, yet there are things we have difficulty reading, and we also believe that some businesses know exactly what they are doing when it benefits them and not the consumer. It's not always a slip-up.

I've never sued anyone, but I actually think it's a good thing when people stand up to businesses on principal. Everyone should be happy about it because they are representing all the little people.

*That's not to say that there are some really frivolous lawsuits out there---I do not agree with those at all.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with this post, except the bolded part. If you are going to make a post, it should surely be worth more than 2 cents to make it worth your time!