Win, Buy or Pay-it-Forward
No, that's not how the site works at all. The site is similar to a pay-per-bid auction site only instead of purchasing bids and bidding on an item users would purchase grabs and grab an item. If they are the final grab of the number of grabs set by the seller for the item they win the item outright with no further monies due. If not the final grab, they are offered the opportunity to purchase the item for the current underprice (which starts at a certain percentage below the list price then drops down with every grab placed). The cost of a grab and dropdown amounts are determined by the seller's price and number of grabs set. The basic idea and catchphrase for the site is "Win, Buy or Pay-it-Forward" (the pay-it-forward part being that if you neither win nor purchase the item your grab is what enables the underprice to drop for the next grabber). So when a user purchases a grab they're purchasing a chance to win the item for free (or technically for just the cost of the grab--which is in keeping with the pay-per-bid auction analogy, at least in those listings where the buyer doesn't have to pay whatever the winning bid amount is), and/or the opportunity to buy the item at a discounted price ranging anywhere from 10% (or whatever percent I decide to make the minimum percent discount that sellers can choose for the sale price/underprice--to start at) up to 99% off the list price. Users would know that the sale price is at least 10% off the list price at the time they purchase their grab but the total discount would be a mystery (or you could look at it as they would know the sale price is 10% off the list price, but that the underprice would include an additional mystery discount ranging from 0%--in the case of the first grab--up to 89% for a total discount of 99% off in the case of the grabber before the final grab).
Naturally, the likelihood of a listing getting all the way to the final grab is low since few people would ever pass on a 99% discount or something close to it--which would be spelled out for people in the terms of service for the sake of full disclosure--but unless or until somebody actually purchases an item before you the chance is always there that you might be the final grabber so it's not a deceptive practice to advertise that chance (although given that the MA regulations specify that they are to be interpreted liberally I could see where those with authority might find the site to be in noncompliance if the advertising was more heavily weighted toward the chance of winning than toward the opportunity to buy at a discount--which would not be the case here since I'd be mindful of that). Having studied the MA regulations my current understanding or interpretation is that I could advertise that a sale price was reduced for an item so long as either the item's original list price was disclosed (and it satisfied the requirements of the regulations for a list price), or the discount being offered was specified. According to the actual wording of the regulations both together is not required, and nowhere does it state--or imply so much as I can see--that the sale price itself has to appear with the list price or with the stated discount. On my site the list price for an item would be displayed with a strike-through across it and the word reduced next to it. As far as I can tell this would satisfy the requirements as spelled out in the regulations. My question is over the mystery discount aspect in relation to the spirit and intention of the regulations. Since the total discount would not be disclosed prior to purchasing a grab and grabbing an item, could that be considered a deceptive practice or otherwise a violation of the spirit and intention of the law?
My take on the intention of the regulations is to put the power in the hands of the consumer and protect the consumer's right to make an informed decision, which I believe my site does sufficiently on both counts, in some ways even better than pay-per-bid sites. While I've used pay-per-bid sites for the sake of comparison in terms of similarities, where we part ways is that on a pay-per-bid site the user's fate is determined by others as to whether or not they walk away with the item (being dependent upon whether another user chooses to outbid them) whereas with my site the grabber determines his own fate. While pay-per-bid auction sites (and all traditional auction sites for that matter) offer a 50/50 chance of walking away with an item depending on the actions of other members, when my grabbers purchase a grab they know they have a 100% chance of walking away with the item either by winning it or choosing to buy it. The power is in their hands at all times. There is one other distinction though: that when a bidder on a pay-per-bid site purchases a bid he knows exactly how much more he'd have to pay in order to walk away with the item should that particular bid win, but when he purchases his bid he does not know what the maximum price for the item could ultimately be in order to walk away with it, which would depend on whether any bids are placed after him and ultimately the total number of bids placed on the item. In contrast, when a grabber on my site purchases a grab he knows exactly what the most could possibly be that he could have to pay to walk away with the item no matter what number grabber he is, but since he doesn't know which grabber he is he would not know the exact amount he'll have to pay at the time he purchases the grab. Personally, I think the latter does a better job of protecting a consumer's right to make an informed decision because what good is it knowing the current price of an item if you have less than a 100% chance (in some cases next to zero chance if the current price is so low it's inevitable someone's going to outbid you) of purchasing the item at that price? As a consumer, if I was going to pay for a bid (or a grab) I'd much rather know I have a 100% chance of walking away with an item for a maximum price of $xy, with a good chance of paying even less. But I don't think the drafters of the regulations ever envisioned a scenario like what I'm proposing so I have no idea what their take on it might be. If anyone knows of a particular section in the regulations that could call my site's operations into question, please point it out to me (for that matter, I still need to research whether there are any federal regulations that might apply so if anyone knows of anything in that department to give me a head start would be great too).
(Sorry this response is so long, I just wanted to be thorough in my explanation this time to avoid further confusion.)
