3 ms·
Did you click the link? Because it's clearly explained edit Updating to be more technically correct: > https://twitter.com/RobertFreundLaw/status/165176065085
by alex_lav 4y ago
Did you click the link? Because it's clearly explained
edit Updating to be more technically correct:
> https://twitter.com/RobertFreundLaw/status/1651760650857902081 https://twitter.com/RobertFreundLaw/status/16517606508579020...
Basically, a retailer must prove they've actually sold a product at it's base price to a substantial amount of customers, to prove that the reduced/sale price is actually a sale price and not its base price. This prevents customers from believing they're getting a better deal than they are.
> The FTC rule says a former price needs to be “the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.
Go to website > see 80% off > sign in to buy > no longer 80% off
- korm 4y ago> Go to website > see 80% off > sign in to buy > no longer 80% off That's a bait and switch, also illegal. This lawsuit however was for fake reference pricing. Clearly a scam and there's a good reason it's banned in much of the developed world, just like false advertising.
- FredPret 4y agoI stand corrected. I thought the discounts were applied at random times, not to non-members to encourage signups
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hgsgm 4y ago> actually sold is not the same as > offered