3 ms·

Here is a link to the CVS Health site about the arrangement: https://www.cvshealth.com/social-responsibility/our-giving/national-partnerships/american-diabetes-

by nickff 4y ago

Here is a link to the CVS Health site about the arrangement: https://www.cvshealth.com/social-responsibility/our-giving/national-partnerships/american-diabetes-association https://www.cvshealth.com/social-responsibility/our-giving/n... Here is a link to the ADA webpage about the announcement: https://diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/2021/10-million-commitment-to-american-diabetes-association-by-cvs-health-reach-5-million-patients-transform-overall-health-outcome https://diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/2021/10-million... It seems like CVS said they would donate 10MM to the ADA, and is satisfying that arrangement by collecting money from customers and other donors. I am unsure as to whether this is 'normal', and it definitely seems unsavory, but it's not clearly illegal. It also seems like this sort of fundraising would be very useful to the ADA, as it helps them raise money from donors they would otherwise have trouble getting in front of.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
This is a situation where the typical consumer has asymmetric resources and time pressure (they’re paying quickly at a retail checkout), and hence have limited opportunity to hunt around CVS’s website to figure out whether CVS is doing the plain-language reasonable thing or has cobbled together some alternative arrangement. Obviously IANAL but I think in these situations firms should clearly disclose to consumers at the time of donation what’s happening. “The plans were clearly displayed in the locked basement of the local planning office” shouldn’t be a viable alternative. More generally: this is a case where government regulation is very helpful. There is a clear public interest in consumers’ ability to trust that retailers are being honest and forthright about “we donate to charity on your behalf” claims. I know many people who refuse to donate to these schemes because they don’t trust the retailer, which seems harmful all around. ETA: I read your first link carefully and I don’t even think it discloses anything. It says there is a $10m commitment and later says customers will be invited to donate. It doesn’t make clear that one will be counted towards the other.

by nickff 4y ago

matthewdgreen 4y ago

This is a situation where the typical consumer has asymmetric resources and time pressure (they’re paying quickly at a retail checkout), and hence have limited opportunity to hunt around CVS’s website to figure out whether CVS is doing the plain-language reasonable thing or has cobbled together some alternative arrangement. Obviously IANAL but I think in these situations firms should clearly disclose to consumers at the time of donation what’s happening. “The plans were clearly displayed in the locked basement of the local planning office” shouldn’t be a viable alternative. More generally: this is a case where government regulation is very helpful. There is a clear public interest in consumers’ ability to trust that retailers are being honest and forthright about “we donate to charity on your behalf” claims. I know many people who refuse to donate to these schemes because they don’t trust the retailer, which seems harmful all around. ETA: I read your first link carefully and I don’t even think it discloses anything. It says there is a $10m commitment and later says customers will be invited to donate. It doesn’t make clear that one will be counted towards the other.