advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Safeway Sued For Not Alerting Loyalty-Card Customers To Food Recall

February 2nd, 2011

Safeway, understandably, has a very different view. Safeway argues that it handles recalls “consistent with all legal/regulatory requirements” and that it issues news releases and posts information on its Web site. It also sometimes posts recall notices at POS devices in its stores and prints the information on POS receipts. To the point of the lawsuit, according to Teena Massingill, director of corporate public affairs for Safeway, the chain has sometimes “used Club Card data to make automated or personal telephone calls to customers regarding recalled products.”

Massingill added, however, that there are good reasons for the industry to not standardize on such CRM-based alerts.

“One size does not fit all. Indeed, less than 50 percent of all grocery retailers even have (loyalty CRM) programs, thus the ability to contact customers individually is not an industry norm,” she said.

Safeway’s E-mail also raised Safeway data consistency issues. “Shoppers are not required to provide contact information to obtain a Safeway ‘Club Card’ frequent shopper card. Neither do they purchase a membership, which requires them to supply personal contact information, as do shoppers of retail clubs like Costco,” Massingill said. “We consider the information/data that is available to determine how to best provide recall information to our customers.”

Similar lawsuits—on behalf of various consumers who purchased recalled products—have been going on for years. Back in 2004, it was Kroger’s turn to be sued. That lawsuit was eventually dismissed. But Kroger’s today uses its CRM database to alert customers to recalls, along with PriceChopper and, most notably, Costco, which has been pushing telephone outreach. The issue hasn’t been limited to grocery chains, either. Macy’s is entangled in the obligation-to-alert mess with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and some lead-encrusted jewelry.

This has been a key issue for CSPI for years. The non-profit even launched a campaign—exactly one year ago—pointing to Costco as a retailer to emulate. In Wednesday’s lawsuit, CSPI referenced Kroger’s, Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, Costco, Giant Food, Harris Tweet Food Markets, Wegmans Food Markets and ShopRite Supermarkets as chains that have now embraced alerting customers to recalls.

Safeway’s well-articulated consistency concerns notwithstanding, our take is that this should be an easy decision. Creating the ability to use E-mail, texting and other methods to stay in contact with loyalty customers should be done anyway. Once done, this type of recall outreach is relatively pain-free.

What benefits? First, consumers receiving such communications are likely to be extremely loyal for quite some time. Second, touting such capabilities is a wonderfully effective argument for getting a lot more customers to use their loyalty cards routinely. That also addresses Safeway’s data consistency concerns, as most customers will gladly volunteer accurate contact data if it means fast recall notifications. (That increase in loyalty card usage—and contact information accuracy—alone is worth the proverbial price of admission.)

Lastly, why not? If just one or two customers are hurt or killed—and there’s a good chance some might be children—because of the lack of notice, the legal liabilities (not to mention the PR disaster) could be devastating. So why risk it?


advertisement

One Comment | Read Safeway Sued For Not Alerting Loyalty-Card Customers To Food Recall

  1. T.Anne Says:

    I am not against the idea – yet at the same time, I hope the case is thrown out or in favor of Safeway. 1, because it is not a industry requirement; 2, because if that was the intended use of the card – it probably would’ve been mentioned in the paperwork… without that it shouldn’t be expected; 3, if you do it for those cards – what about store credit cards? Shouldn’t those be included too under that logic – they have all the detail; 4, most customers don’t want the emails anyways, or just delete them. Who’s to say they’d want this? If done – it should be an opt in or out option separate from any other emails – not a requirement; and 5, this just screams data privacy risk to me for some reason… it could create a fine line between when and how to use customer PII.

Newsletters

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!
advertisement

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...

StorefrontBacktalk
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.