Since when do we trust retailers to tell us when something is a good deal? Do your own homework.

Amazon does the same thing.

@RandoX: You may be okay with companies outright lying to you (because after all, you've done your homework and are an expert on what you're purchasing), but not everyone is.

That's why the Macy's ads all say "Intermediate markdowns may have been taken" when they list the "original" price and the new "sale" price.

Bastards.

@RandoX:
Agreed! Caveot Emptor!

@RandoX: Apparently lots of people trust other people to tell them it's a good deal otherwise we wouldn't have this subprime mortgage mess.

@RandoX:
I don't. I felt somewhat dirty when I worked at Toys R Us in the videogames department. The big thing that year was PS2 (just launched) and GameBoy colors. We were sent a nice shipment of Sega GameGears. ok this thing is over 9 years old at this point. They want us to sell them. Well, we did. We hyped them and how you could get one and like 5 games for the price of a GameBoy. I felt somewhat dirty since they really wanted to get a GameBoy, but only somewhat because I personally love the GameGear.

There are certain retailers to not trust and Toys R Us is one of them. Employees are or were at least rewarded by being allowed to keep their seasonal jobs by doing a good job and pushing crap off on consumers during the holidays. And when it comes to videogames, just look for a place that DOESN'T force a bundle on something, and they are most likely legit on their prices. Target comes to mind...

@mopar_man: Yes, I actually think the PS3 listing is debatable—as long as Toys R Us doesn't imply that they're discounting the list price, all they're doing is listing an original price and current price. The Zune is another issue, because they're implying a savings based on a higher price that no longer exists. Same with Apple.

Well, sure, buyer beware and all that, but at what point does "buyer beware" turn into "I am too caught up in the idea of personal responsibility to call companies out on their bullshit, so I will just let them lie to me and I will just shoulder all responsibility during any transactions I have with them"?

This only serves to show an error in the logic of many consumers. You buy something because you have deemed that the amount of money that they are asking for an object is worth trading to them in exchange for that good or service. There is no reason to purchase something due to its markdown (from some mythical amount).

The question is "Would I trade X Dollars for this good or service" not "Should I save X dollars by purchasing this good or service now".

I love the "Add to baby registry" button in the PS3 ad. My baby defintely needs a PS3 as a gift. And by baby I mean me.

This reminds me of Tivo's practices. After my tivo series 3 broke and I called for a replacement, they charged $900 to my credit card for the re-conditioned replacement, until I sent them my broken one. I know you can buy a series 3 brand new for $600 from circuit city and many times much cheaper than that. So, if I were to forget to return my tivo, they will have hugely profitted off of me.

I have a friend who very much falls into the trap of "but it's a great price!" when in fact, "it's a piece of crap that you don't need."

"Oooh -- eggplant sorters -- 3 for $10!"
"Yes, but do you NEED them?"
"But they're marked down from $20 each! It's a bargain."

I'm totally guilty of that too, but the first step is admitting I have a problem, right?

I mean, doesn't everyplace do this. This is the second story about this issue, and it was always in my mind that most stores doe this all the time.

It's called marketing - A consumer is more willing to purchased a $20 item marked down from $100 then they are willing to purchase a $20 marked down from $25 (even if it is the same exact item).

Kind of like how most DVD's are MVRP $30, but many stores offer great discounts of around $15-$20

@ThomFabian: You're absolutely right that consumers should think that way, but it's not easy.

One thing that I'm thinking is that at the time of product introduction, showing the original list price for that exact product with the same specs as it had when first introduced - should be okay.

On the other hand, if you're selling a product with all current upgrades (OS, software updates, etc etc) and showing the original price of the product (before these updates) - I don't think that would be a legitimate way of presenting the products original price.

For instance:

If you bought a monitor that had no USB ports originally. Sold for $800 originally. Now, the same product, comes with USB ports - it's the same product just with a small upgrade. List price now is $500 (because tech-times change). And refurbished, it shows you the original product without the USB ports as for sale at $450 with the original list price of $800. That, technically, is correct.

Crap. I think I just confused myself. Anyone understand what I'm saying?

@coan_net: Yes, a consumer's probably much more likely to buy your products if you're allowed to lie to them about the amount the items are marked down.

There's marketing, and then there's bullshit. Know the difference.

It's one thing to say: Was $599, now $399 (think iPhone). It is something else entirely to say "List Price $599, now $349" when the current normal selling price is $399. The former is perfectly acceptable to me. The iPhone was in fact $599, and it is now $399. The latter is not acceptable to me, since the list price is NOT $599... it is $399.

It's legal as long as Toy's R Us has millions of more money than you do.
You could sue them. When it gets settled in a few years, give us a call.

My grand-father in law gets these ads geared toward seniors all the time with 5 yr. old computers for sale. And they are obviously (to me at least) way overpriced. But to him, it looks like a good deal, because it has stuff like:
Original price: $2300, now $499
but in reality, it isn't even worth $199 because it is so old. Very annoying.

@ThomFabian: I agree 100%. I used to have a roommate that would buy just about anything based on the discount he got, not the actual price vs. value. It should be up to the buyer to research this, otherwise consider it a laziness tax.

new york has very strict laws about pricing - many states do not. but the question i have is this: what state laws are internet merchants required to abide by? all of them? i would seem to think that they would only be required to follow the laws consistent with their "home" state (however that is determined). separately, i would expect a store with merchant locations within new york to follow new york pricing guidelines.

i seem to recall the new york ag trying to get internet merchants in other states to abide by ny state law in a similar circumstance recently, but i could be wrong (& i don't remember the outcome anyway...so why did i bring this up?).

i don't think this practice is fair, but merchants have never been known for their fairness. it's up to us, as educated consumers, to shop for the best deal & avoid the pitfalls along the way.

@crabbyman6: Tell your old roommate, I have a 2,005,000 dollar diamond for sale for 15,000.

@mac-phisto: All the states they are willing to ship to.

@mac-phisto: But the difference in this situation is that TRU has brick and mortar in NY, so they doubly have to follow NY laws.

If you don't do your research and figure out what is a good sale and what is a bad sale, then it's no one's fault but your own. That $499 PS3 seems like a great deal until you find out everyone else is selling it for $499 too. But if you won't do your research and see that it was reduced to $499, whose fault is it that you just didn't do your homework? Not the store's fault. It's somewhat shady, sure, but whether they do it for the gullible consumer isn't the point. It's that someone fell for it, when they shouldn't have. Personal responsibility for one's own purchasing power.

@DrGirlfriend: Yes, this. I'll do my research regardless, but I don't want to buy from a retailer who's willing to tell me a bald-faced lie.

However, I'm not exactly interested in keeping a running list of places I'm not allowed to shop, so maybe the companies themselves should STOP LYING.

@cde: is that your opinion or fact? here's why i ask: i know connecticut requires a comparable price per unit -> [www.ct.gov]

yet here is a 5-pack of toilet paper for sale with no per unit cost -> [www.amazon.com]

isn't the reason states have been unable to successfully tax internet sales relative to this argument? i was always under the impression that the jurisdiction of state agencies charged with oversight did not extend beyond their respective border (unless such prior jurisdiction was granted in a formal agreement).

Amazon does this all the time, and if you look you can find some crazy markdowns.

This wouldn't be news, except Apple's doing it, and the same people who went all crazy when apple dared lower their prices, and who went all crazy for the "internet communications device", will probably go all crazy about this.

then there are the things you need, and continue to need that if you buy low, you indeed save money. if gas went on sale for $2 per gallon, you should fill up to save money in the long run right?

ex: winter coats. sure do you need one in the summer? no. but if you buy in the summer when they are on sale, the season will eventually change, and you indeed saved money.

Wait, did Sony ever officially lower the price of the PS3 + Motorstorm bundle? I know that the particular model in that picture is from a year ago, and the PS3 has had a ton of different SKU's at different prices. Technically, the SKU that TRU is listing there might never have been discounted, so TRU is right in discounting it to the current market value for an equivalent PS3.

They already got $60 from the 10% restocking fee to return the phone. So they are making an additional profit on the refurbed phone? Seems sketchy.

There is nothing illegal about what Apple does or any company that clearly shows the original selling price and the current price. They state both the "Original Price" and the "current sales price". The original price is indeed the original list price of the item and they do not have to give you a intermediate price just because they decided to change the retail value along the way. And while you quote NYC Laws, Apple clearly states on their site that:

"all sales at the Apple Store are governed by California law"

And as for Toy R Us:

"Toys R US terms and Conditions will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey"

All retail websites have a Terms of Service located on the bottom which clearly defines how they sell and what terms mean.

Regarding this topic, the Bloomingdales site says it best:

"When we refer to an "Original" price on the bloomingdales.com section of the site, this means that the merchandise was previously offered at the higher "original" price listed."

No one is ripping you off. Your just a smarter consumer that knows that the original list price was changed. You're still getting a deal. There is no trickery here.

Generally you are asking what law applies to internet transactions, a good question and one that is hardly settled.

The short side stepping answer is to ask the Attorney General of your State and hope that they actually have settled this question with a reasonable response.

But basically, it is a question of Due Process, Jurisdiction and Long Arm Statutes, Conflict of Laws, with potentially Contract Interpretation thrown in. The analysis is usually something like the "purposeful availment" test [en.wikipedia.org]
"purposeful availment" test to determine whether a company can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. "Courts have looked at 3 factors: availment of a company to another jurisdiction, whether an act was done in another jurisdiction, and whether the jurisdiction is reasonable for the defendant to expect to defend himself there."

However, the slightly longer (and partially incomplete) answer is who can actually compel these people to appear physically within a courthouse? In the USA, courts' jurisdictional powers are limited by due process and by state statutes known as Long-Arm Statutes. These conflict at times, and the actual determination is very fact intensive simply because corporations have no physical body and people equate the internet to a magical disembodied place since they do not understand the technology.

It is somewhat like asking if you order something on the phone from another state, where is the business "located"? Have they extended their reach to your state?

Look at [ecommercelaw.typepad.com] for some examples.

@UpsetPanda:
"...but whether they do it for the gullible consumer isn't the point. It's that someone fell for it, when they shouldn't have."

Okay, I believe you've hit the very definition of a con artist's work. So, I take it you're in favor of letting con artists do their thing without any fear of legal ramifications?

What are the legal standards for a valid list price? Anyone know?

I mean, the concept of, for example marking up furniture the day before the 50% off sale is older than retail itself. Expressing the "value basis" in the most favorable way possible is obviously in the best interests of retailers.

The term List Price is a bit confusing since it usually refers to a certain list usually (the MSRP or Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price [www.wisegeek.com] [en.wikipedia.org]). However, this also means - "The stated price of a commodity before any discount or other reduction." [www.bartleby.com]

This is not usually the Market Price, which can be higher or lower. A good article on this is actually an old article " www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,863109,00.html "

In Utah I frequently see items that are purportedly on sale, with tags that say "compare at X amount," with X being a price much higher than the "sale" amount. I've always assumed they phrase it this way so they can technically avoid lying about the item's original price.

@Curiosity:

You might want to credit the sources that you plagiarize from as if it first hand knowledge. In this case:

[en.wikipedia.org]

I could see how maybe the refurbished iPhones were the models that were originally released, thus justifying the original MSRP comparison. Otherwise, this is misleading, but I think people are familiar with this practice.

so i can bring in an add from decades ago and demand they can match that price?

no thanks. i don't think it's legal.

Nequam solves it ... by Nequam:

What matters most in the decision whether to buy a product: the current price or the amount of any discount? Certainly it is the price. If Item X is a good value at $50, what difference does it make it was previously $55 or $550? It should not make any difference, because the purchaser has to pay $50. Not $55. Not $550.

Famous last words of the unskilled consumer: "Well, it was a bit more than I wanted to spend, but it was such a great deal that I could not pass it up!"