Best Buy Admits To Misleading Customers With Kiosks

Written by Evan Schuman
December 15th, 2010

After more than three-and-a-half years of courtroom battles with the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, Best Buy on Monday (Dec. 13) admitted that its in-store kiosks tricked consumers out of Web price-matching and agreed to pay consumers in that state $399,000.

The chain also said it would stop showing higher prices on its in-store kiosks and would “conspicuously disclose to consumers” if the kiosk was displaying lower prices. Although the settlement is unlikely a cause for celebration at Best Buy, the chain actually fared quite well and will sustain little pain from it.

Editor’s Note:

  • Page 1 of this Best Buy Kiosk Deception Settlement Special Report covers The Overview Of The Case, Implications.
  • Page 2 covers The Different Web And In-Store Pricing Quicksand.
  • Page 3 covers How Little It Will Help Consumers

    Why little pain? A $399,000 settlement is not a huge deterrent for a $50 billion chain, but it might become more annoying if it spreads to many other states. (If every other U.S. state and Washington, D.C., reached a similar settlement, it would still only be $20 million. At this stage, though, three years after Connecticut filed its charges, it’s unlikely any other states or territories would begin actions.)

    The actions required—the halting of the deceptive kiosk program—are trivial; that program had pretty much run its course. Mobile-equipped shoppers also make it irrelevant: A consumer who wants to prove the price of a Best Buy Web offer could simply do it on his/her phone. Therefore, Best Buy has agreed to put an end to a program that it pretty much had stopped pursuing some time ago anyway. Hardly a stinging penalty that will teach the chain a lesson about never try anything like this again.

    The original problem stemmed from Best Buy’s 2007 efforts at price-matching. Customers would see a low price on the Best Buy site and drive to a local store to pick up the product. When in the store, if they noticed that the in-store price was higher, they’d approach an associate asking for the chain to price-match its own site, as Best Buy advertised it would do. The associate would walk the customer to the in-store kiosk to check to verify the lower rate. Lo and behold, the site showed the same in-store price. The consumer would typically shrug, assume that they misread it or that the sale had ended and abandon the attempt at the price-match.

    The problem was that the kiosk wasn’t showing the site’s Web store. It was showing a site that looked identical to the Web site, except that it had higher prices. Best Buy’s explanation at the time was that it wanted to have a kiosk in-store that displayed in-store prices. Given that in-store and online prices were different, it didn’t make sense, the chain argued, to have a kiosk showing the lower online pricing.

    This raises two points.

  • advertisement

    One Comment | Read Best Buy Admits To Misleading Customers With Kiosks

    1. Craig Keefner Says:

      I wonder if the store kiosks configuration were nationwide or if there was any targeting by region/zip.


    StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

    Most Recent Comments

    Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

    I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
    Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
    A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
    The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
    @David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

    Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.