Taco Bell sued by NJ couple over $2.18 dispute.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

GREEN BROOK, N.J. – A dispute over $2.18 at Taco Bell literally has become a federal case.

Nelson Estrella-Rojas and his wife, Joann Estrella, of Middlesex Borough, are suing Taco Bell and its parent company, Yum! Brands, which also owns KFC and Pizza Hut, because they were charged $12.18 for two Chalupa Cravings Boxes, which they say were advertised for $5 apiece.

In May 2018, the lawsuit says, the couple saw Taco Bell's "Librarian" TV commercial for the $5 boxes and decided to drive to the Taco Bell on Route 22 for the deal that included a Chalupa Supreme, Five-Layer Burrito, Crunchy Taco, Cinnamon Twist and medium drink.

After ordering two boxes, the couple was charged $12.99, which included 81 cents of state sales tax.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/10/17/taco-bell-sued-chalupa-cravings-box-price-dispute-nj-couple/4006634002/

[Lochloosa]

1. My guess is they were "upsized" without there knowledge. Happens all the time.

That medium drink turned into a large drink.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

2. As I understand it, that particular location was not participating in the advertised promotion.

Regardless, the easiest and best thing to do was for the store to give the discount.

[Major Nikon]

4. For 2 seconds the ad flashed "prices may vary" in small print

It's the classic bait and switch fraud practiced on a much larger scale.

I hope they are successful in the federal suit. It will send a loud and clear message to corporations and will end a lot of this kind of shit.

[jberryhill]

7. Correct

If not all of the franchisees are participating, then it is irresponsible to run an ad suggesting "TACO BELL" is doing X, Y or Z, when the statement is simply not true.

It is entirely unreasonable to expect that a consumer who has driven up to a drive-through menu, placed an order, and pulled around for payment to understand whether this is a corporate store or a participating franchisee.


They were told "you can get this at Taco Bell for X" and they are entitled to believe they can get that.

But, instead, what this does is motivate the franchisees not to participate in the offer. The advertising will bring people to the store, and by the time they get to the cash register to find out they've been lied to, then they have sunk time into getting something to eat and aren't going to fight over $2.00.

Kudos to this couple and fuck Taco Bell.

[Major Nikon]

8. Franchise owners are required to pay an "advertising fee" to Taco Bell

...as a condition of their franchise. So at some level they do participate and they certainly receive the benefit of that advertising.

[jberryhill]

3. Headlines like that are misleading

To be clear, they are not suing for $2.18.

On the table are damages of more than $75,000 under the relevant consumer fraud statute. Additionally, if they obtain class status upon discovery of many similar instances, the amount in dispute will easily be millions.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

5. It doesn't read that they are suing for $2.18. It reads that they are suing over a $2.18 dispute.

[jberryhill]

6. Yes, I can read that

"Misleading" and "false" are two different words, with two different meanings. One could easily read that headline to understand that they are suing "over" $2.18 to mean that the amount in dispute is $2.18.

And here's why it matters.

I guess I need to expressly point out the bias effect that insurance companies have done such a good job of inculcating.

Compare these two headlines:

1. "Taco Bell Faces $75,000 False Advertising Claim"

2. "Couple Sues Taco Bell Over $2.18 Dispute"

If you showed those two headlines to two different groups, what do you think the reactions of those groups might be on a question like "Do you think someone is being unreasonable?"

Corporate interests prefer headlines like #2, to headlines like #1. While both of them are "accurate" in a strictly factual sense, headline #1 more accurately captures the overall reality of the situation - i.e. that this is about much more than someone going to court "over $2.18".

Things can be "accurate" and still be "misleading". The headline here is consistent with the general trend that insurance companies have inspired, to cast consumer suits and false advertising suits as being categorically frivolous.

As I noted above this practice of conducting national advertising on promotions where "not all location might participate" is utterly deceptive and should be stopped.

[Major Nikon]

9. There's another way to look at it

This case looks as if it's going to evolve into a class action. For those who are members of the class there will be millions of ~$1.09 payouts or other offers of discounts on future meals. Meanwhile the law firm that manages the class will receive a much more substantial check.

I see the lesson here is how large corporations commit fraud on a scale small enough to go largely unnoticed at the individual level, but collectively it is a much bigger deal.

[jberryhill]

10. Yeah, the headline minimizes the potential scale

I like Taco Bell. Love their stuff.

But this general practice of national advertisers claiming - for very uniform and indistinguishable franchise operations - "You can get X except where you can't" is just not right.

Either you can get an advertised price or you can't. And if you can't, don't advertise it.

How hard a principle is that?

If it takes a class action lawyer reaping a windfall for that to happen, then more power to him or her.

[Major Nikon]

11. They might start making the fine print a little less fine