Discounts at Wish
August 2017: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. Later in August, the named plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the district court action, the reasons for which were…
May 2018: A state court judge granted final approval of the settlement agreement.
December 2017: A state court judge preliminarily approved a settlement agreement that would resolve a false advertising class-action lawsuit against Wish.com alleging that the website misleadingly advertises percentage discounts off of inflated and fabricated “original” prices.
According to the settlement terms, class members who provide proof of purchase and documentation of a lower reference price advertised by another retailer may recover 25% of the difference between the advertised reference prices on Wish.com and the other retailer. Class members who provide documentation for one product may recover a maximum of $10 per household and class members who provide documentation for multiple products may recover a maximum of $20 per household. Class members who do not provide proof of purchase may recover a maximum of $3 per household. The company also agreed to include clear disclosures on its website, including disclosures that explain the nature of strikethrough prices to consumers, as well as disclosures that explain to sellers when they may use strikethrough prices.
The final fairness hearing is March 28, 2018. For more information, go to http://www.wishpricingsettlement.com/. (Golden et al v. ContextLogic Inc. d/b/a Wish.com, Case No. 17PH-CV01741, Circuit Court of Phelps County, Missouri)
For more information about the advertising of discounts, click here.
TINA.org puts the brakes on car wrap scam.
TINA.org reader flags “ultimate apples to oranges” comparison.
Dueling and potentially confusing hotel ratings muddy deals.
The result is that BNPL services that are advertised as free aren’t, class-action lawsuits allege.
Tricking consumers into paying hundreds of dollars for services that are available for free.