6 Lucky Markets Accused of ‘Rip Off’ : Food: D.A. files a complaint. The chain cites human error in problems involving bakery and deli products.

The Ventura County district attorney’s office Monday accused the county’s six Lucky supermarkets of falsely advertising delicatessen and bakery products “in a concerted and repeated effort to rip off grocery shoppers.”

The civil complaint, filed in Ventura County Superior Court, says Lucky stores advertised and sold “seafood salad with crab” that contained only imitation crab and “cream pies” that had no cream.

The complaint added that the stores offered “premium roast beef” that actually was select-grade beef and “ham” that was really a cooked-ham-and-water product with 32% added ingredients.

A Lucky Food Centers spokeswoman blamed the problems on “simple human error” and said they have been corrected.

The Ventura County complaint is the latest of several suits charging Southern California’s second-largest grocery chain with violating the state’s Business and Professions Code.

In 1987, in response to complaints by the state attorney general’s office and the Contra Costa district attorney’s office, Lucky agreed to obey the code’s provisions regarding food labeling and packaging.

In February, the Marin County district attorney’s office accused the chain of violating that agreement and the business code by charging customers gross weight instead of net weight for bakery and deli products.

“The consumer was paying for the wrappings,” Marin County Deputy Dist. Atty. Robert Eugene Nichols said. “When the label says a pound, it’s supposed to be a pound.” A request for a preliminary injunction is pending in that case.

The Ventura County complaint, which also seeks a preliminary injunction, accuses Lucky of false advertising, using unfair business practices and violating the 1987 Contra Costa County injunction.

Each violation of the 1987 injunction could result in a $6,000 penalty, plus additional fines of up to $5,000 for each of the alleged code violations, Assistant Dist. Atty. Colleen Toy White said.

She said she could not say how many violations may have occurred. The suit seeks a minimum penalty of $450,000.

In a statement, Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury said: “Lucky’s is involved in a concerted and repeated effort to rip off grocery shoppers. . . . Instead of making broad claims that it has the lowest prices, Lucky’s should concentrate on simply telling the truth.”

In a prepared statement, Lucky spokeswoman Meredith Anderson said: “We acknowledge that due to simple human error, misleading signs . . . were posted in some of our Southern California stores.”

She said Bradbury’s office has repeatedly rejected “what we thought was a fair settlement in the public interest.” She declined to elaborate.

Some of the violations have been corrected, Deputy Dist. Atty. Linda S. Groberg said. “As far as we know, they have changed the labels on the seafood salad and on the ham with water product,” she said. The corrective actions do not affect the complaint, Groberg said.

“Just because somebody corrects the problem when it’s brought to their attention does not mean that civil action to punish them and to deter the conduct is not warranted,” she said.

White said the investigation was begun in July, 1990, after a complaint was filed with the agency’s consumer mediation service. At each of the six Lucky stores in Ventura County, investigators posing as shoppers purchased something called “seafood salad with crab,” White said.

When the investigators asked if the crab was real, White said, Lucky employees at each of the stores said no. At a Simi Valley store, she said, an employee replied: “It would be too costly for Lucky’s to make and too costly for the consumer to purchase if it was real.”

An investigator said that when the same question was posed at a Lucky’s in Carpinteria, an employee said, “Of course it’s not real.”

The sign promoting “seafood pasta salad” at the Lucky store in Oxnard on Monday made no mention of crab. An employee who asked not to be identified said she was aware of some labeling problem several months ago but she felt sure it had been corrected.

At the adjacent bakery, Oralia Barra of Oxnard was waiting to pick up a birthday cake for her 13-year-old son. “This is the best place for cheaper cakes,” she said.

Barra said she could not believe that cream cakes from the bakery could contain non-dairy substitutes, as alleged in the complaint.

“They have a very good taste,” she said. “I like them.”