Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Lawsuit Against Target





   I am not a frequent shopper of Target, not becuase of dislike but becuase of location. The closest target is over 45 minutes away, I actually would like to be able to shop at Target more often. I have to suffice with Walmart, which is about 5 minutes from my home. Thankfully I have slowly been able to change the managements knowledge of coupons and their coupon policy.

   Consequently when I heard about the lawsuit against Target I was actually surprised. Nevertheless, I wasn't exactly a common shopper there and when I did go I rarely had problems with coupons. Fellow coupon users did express that Targets computer system had a "glitch" that affected the amount that would be taken off after the coupon was scanned. This amount was generally lower than the face value of the coupon, in some cases drastically lower.

According to the lawsuit, Norris was shopping Sept. 8 at the Target on U.S. 280 when she presented a manufacturer's coupon she had gotten online for Huggies brand baby wipes. The coupon stated she could buy three packages of the wipes and get $2.50 off the purchase price.
The lawsuit claims Norris instead received a credit of $2.39 for the coupon.

   Some people may say that this is a useless lawsuit, just a waste of money. Why start a lawsuit over such a small amount. It's the principle of the matter, Target knew about the "glitches" yet failed to correct them. Yes its only a few cents here in there .... have you ever watched Office Space ... if you have thats kind of how it is. But if need be I will break it down further. below is an example of what could happen if all the customers using coupons were shorted $0.11, keep in mind they are only using one coupon per person.

Example:
$0.11 x 200 people per store per day @ 1724 stores = $37,928.00
$37,928x 365 days = $13,843,720.00

   So in a years time they are making out with 13,843,720.00 of consumers rightful money because their computer system had a "glitch" that they repeatedly forgot to fix. How is that fair?

0 comments: