Case against Vons set to go to trial in February
Santa Monica grocery shoppers should check the fine print on anything advertised as “on sale,” officials say.
The warning comes in the wake of city findings that a Santa Monica outlet could be systematically overcharging its customers. Pavilions on Montana Avenue, which is owned by Vons Companies, Inc., is said by the city attorney’s office to have charged customers more at the check-out line for products than what was advertised on price tags.
Six of 20 items spot-checked last year were incorrectly scanned and resulted in overcharges, according to criminal charges filed after an Oct. 31, 2001 investigation by the Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures.
The overcharges apparently happened because Pavilions didn’t remove price tags of “on sale” items when sale prices expired. A customer who subsequently bought the item would be charged more than he expected because the “sale price” shown wasn’t good any more.
An investigator chose some items that were advertised as on sale, but where the offer had expired between one and three days earlier, said Deputy City Attorney Eda U. Suh.
Vons attorney Fred DiBernardo said it’s not the grocery store’s fault when customers don’t read the tag to determine if the sale has ended. Store employees remove the tags as quickly as they can so as not to confuse customers, but not all of them are removed the day the offer expires, DiBernardo said.
Expiration dates are often listed in very small print on the tags.
It’s up to the customer to make sure she knows what she’s buying, he added.
“It’s no different than a coupon you pull out of a newspaper,” he said. “Consumers are astute, they know what they are buying. But the city attorney and some others think the consumer is stupid.”
Suh, the city’s lawyer in the case, argues that advertising any item as on sale when it isn’t is misleading. The store shouldn’t put the burden on customers to check every price — especially when it is wrong, she said.
“You end up overcharging consumers because you don’t want to pay their employees an extra hour to go check the tags and remove them,” she said. “All they have to do is hire more people.
“It’s a very tough situation because consumers do rely on the sales tags,” Suh added. “And for Vons to take this position that they don’t want to pay their employees to check the tag is wrong. Customers can’t assume what they read on the tags is correct.”
“It’s a very tough situation because consumers do rely on the sales tags. And for Vons to take this position that they don’t want to pay their employees to check the tag is wrong. Customers can’t assume what they read on the tags is correct.” — — EDA U. SUH Deputy City Attorney
Lona Luckett, a senior trade practice analyst for the Better Business Bureau in Southern California, said consumers should always be pay attention to what they’re charged. She suggests watching the cash register screen that displays the price of each item as it is rung through.
“If the sale is over, the grocery store should make attempts to remove the tag,” she said. “But people need to pay attention to what they are buying.”
Pavilions’ policy is that a customer can get a refund if he or she later finds they paid for an item that was rung up at a higher price than listed. However, bottles of wine can’t be returned, according to state law. Some of the largest “club card” discounts at grocery stores — not just Pavilions — occur on bottled wine.
The City of Santa Monica filed similar charges against Vons in 1998. A Superior Court judge then dismissed the charges, DiBernardo said.
“I don’t know why they are trying this case. They lost it two years ago,” he said. “It’s an identical case.”
Suh argues it’s a brand new case because it stems from new offenses.
Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Bernard Kamins agreed last week when he denied Vons’ motion to dismiss the charges based on the doctrine of “collateral estoppel.” Vons unsuccessfully argued that the City can’t prosecute the case because a judge in 1998 acquitted Vons in the similar case. An administrative hearing officer in Ventura County earlier this year found Vons hadn’t violated the business and professions code. Vons argued the city is now and in the future precluded from bringing charges against it in similar cases.
But Kamins on Friday ruled that Von’s should go to trial. It’s set for Feb. 6, 2003.
The city says Vons has been charged several times with the same violations and has either pled guilty or no contest in front of judges.
However, DiBernardo said the grocery store has never been found to be a repeat offender.
“There has not been one of these cases that Vons has been found guilty in,” he said.
DiBernardo has his own feelings on why the city is targeting Vons.
“The city is shopping for a new verdict because they didn’t like the first one,” he said. “Maybe the Santa Monica City Attorney doesn’t have any other significant cases and has a large budget... maybe they suffer from TMM (too much money.)”
The Vons Companies, Inc. is charged with six counts of violating the business and professions code for charging higher than the posted price on sale items. Vons also is charged with one count of violating of the business and professions code for disseminating false and misleading advertisements.
Whatever the legalities of who’s responsible, the advice for customers remains: Read the fine print.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 14, 2002. Read the original PDF.