Is it legal to deny customers an advertised discount, based on payment method?

[n13L5]

California

Is it legal for a company to deny a customer a discount it offers, based on payment method?


A limited time discount has been offered on a product.

But all customers wanting to pay with store credit are explicitly excluded from the discount and asked to pay $750 instead of the $625 charged to customers paying with every other payment method.

 

[LdiJ]

California

Is it legal for a company to deny a customer a discount it offers, based on payment method?


A limited time discount has been offered on a product.

But all customers wanting to pay with store credit are explicitly excluded from the discount and asked to pay $750 instead of the $625 charged to customers paying with every other payment method.

Its not illegal. Its stupid but its not illegal. Take your business elsewhere.

 

[quincy]

California

Is it legal for a company to deny a customer a discount it offers, based on payment method?


A limited time discount has been offered on a product.

But all customers wanting to pay with store credit are explicitly excluded from the discount and asked to pay $750 instead of the $625 charged to customers paying with every other payment method.

Yes, it is legal for a company to deny a customer a discount it offers, based on payment method.

This is done on a regular basis at gas stations, for example, with the gas station charging less for gas to its cash-paying customers than it offers to those paying with credit cards. If someone wants a gas discount, they either pay in cash or apply for the gas station's credit card (which can provide customers with special discounts).

There is more of a financial risk for a company when a customer pays with a credit card than when a customer pays with cash.

 

[FlyingRon]

Used to be that there was a California law prohibiting this, but it was struck down by the courts, so it's not illegal to charge differently (or surcharge a particular payment issue).

You might have an FTC advertising issue if the lower price for one payment method is deceptively advertised as the price for any payment. Not enough information here to understand if that has happened.

 

[n13L5]

Thanks for the replies!

Now your examples were mainly focused on credit cards vs cash etc, where there is a fee being deducted from the vendor's price by the credit card company for example. Also the risk of credit card fraud being mainly carried by the vendor, rather than the credit card companies.


If I correct my question from "denial based on payment method" to "denial based on using store credits", does that change anything?



Since the store already has the money, should store credit not be counted as equal to cash?

 

[cbg]

No. It does not change anything.

 

[justalayman]

Thanks for the replies!

Now your examples were mainly focused on credit cards vs cash etc, where there is a fee being deducted from the vendor's price by the credit card company for example. Also the risk of credit card fraud being mainly carried by the vendor, rather than the credit card companies.


If I correct my question from "denial based on payment method" to "denial based on using store credits", does that change anything?



Since the store already has the money, should store credit not be counted as equal to cash?

if the limits are properly conveyed to the consumer, no, it is not unlawful. If the limitations were not included it could be a false advertising (truth in advertising) problem

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks for the replies!

Now your examples were mainly focused on credit cards vs cash etc, where there is a fee being deducted from the vendor's price by the credit card company for example. Also the risk of credit card fraud being mainly carried by the vendor, rather than the credit card companies.


If I correct my question from "denial based on payment method" to "denial based on using store credits", does that change anything?



Since the store already has the money, should store credit not be counted as equal to cash?

Ok, so you are not talking about any kind of credit card, but store credit that you received when you returned an item or earned through some sort of an incentive program? In that case, its still not illegal and I can actually understand why they have the policy.

 

[n13L5]

I can actually understand why they have the policy.

I think that part of your conclusion was too hasty, without knowing how that store credit came into existence.


The store credit was the result of a product return, caused by a large discrepancy in that company's description of a product and the actual product sold. The difference was large enough, one could have received his cash back in a court or law, like someone selling an 8 cylinder car and delivering a 4 cylinder car instead.

So, accepting store credit was being overly trusting with this company, obviously. I understand the overall point, that it is now too late; once the store credit has been accepted, they can legally jerk you around all they want.