Retailers Should Follow Costco’s Loyalty Card-Based Recall Example, Says Consumer Group

Written by Fred J. Aun
February 10th, 2009

Image-conscious food retailers might be squeamish about using loyalty card information to telephone customers who bought recalled products, but a consumer advocacy lawyer argues that public safety should trump brand protection.

Retailers have an obligation to follow the lead of Costco and use loyalty card information to alert their customers about salmonella-tainted peanut products, and anything else they sell that turns out to be dangerous, said Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) staff attorney Sarah Klein.

Earlier this month, CSPI published an “Open Letter to Food Retailers” in which it praises retailers such as Costco and Wegman’s that mined their loyalty card data to find out, and make phone calls to, customers who bought recalled peanut-based products.

Retailers didn’t exactly jump on that bandwagon, Klein said. “Safeway said they were going to take a hard look at doing it now,” she said. “That’s a step in the right direction. We don’t necessarily have to get into why they hadn’t thought of it before.” PriceChopper is another food seller that does loyalty card-based alerting.

That said, Klein did suggest a reason or two behind retailer reluctance about using loyalty card databases to determine the names of customers who buy recalled products. “The problem is, most retailers don’t want to be associated with a recall in any way,” Klein said. “Their concern is that when you get a call, it is going to cast a bad light on them. But this peanut situation shows that’s incorrect. This kind of contamination gets into everything. There are over 1,000 products implicated. The likelihood you didn’t purchase one is pretty slim.”

Other Implications

Aside from a fear of looking bad, food retailers might be fretting the legal implications. If it becomes a food store’s job to warn people about tainted products, should those stores be expected to contact every customer, including the shoppers who do not have loyalty cards? Costco doesn’t have this concern because anybody who shops at one of the chain’s warehouse stores must be a card-carrying member.

Or, what happens if the customers who purposely avoid signing up for the cards contend they’re being coerced — through fear of being left in the dark about potentially deadly purchases — into becoming cardholders? Los Angeles-based blogger T. J. Sullivan told the L.A. Times he appreciated the peanut-related call he received from Costco. However, Sullivan still worries about the long-term risks of loyalty card information dissemination, pointing to a not-so-unrealistic scenario in which Costco is acquired by a health insurance company that bases policy premiums on the type of food its customers eat.

In lieu of taking the loyalty card-based phone call route, some food retailers are printing recall notices on receipts. Klein said she finds this reaction to be underwhelming at best. “We don’t think that’s sufficient,” she said. “Most consumers don’t look at that gobbledegook at the bottom of a receipt. Nobody’s scanning all that.”

Others, such as Kroger, have empowered their POS systems to flash alerts to cashiers when a recalled item that somehow missed being removed from the store shelves is scanned at the checkout. That system, while great for preventing new cases of disease and/or death, does nothing to help people who bought the potentially poisonous food prior to the discovery of its toxicity. Kroger has also experimented with loyalty card-based phone calls and with store receipt notifications.

Although loyalty cards seem to be an ideal method of dealing with widespread recalls, Klein said it is unlikely the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can require retailers to follow Costco’s lead. “The thing that’s hard is that most customer loyalty programs fall within state contract law,” she said. “It’s hard for the federal government to say retailers should be doing this. They’re governed by the states. However, we are looking at legislation that would modernize the FDA and would work on these kinds of issues from the inception point, not the reaction point.”


One Comment | Read Retailers Should Follow Costco’s Loyalty Card-Based Recall Example, Says Consumer Group

  1. Bob Says:

    They should, but will not—they can’t make money doing something honorable. The companies already track your every purchase via the cards and then SELL the info to other companies. Why should they do something good for the customer? COSTCO better be warned that in the USA, no good deed goes unpunished.


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.