Retailers Oppose Bill on Price Scanner Refunds
On the eve of a crucial vote, legislation that would force stores to repay consumers for price scanner overcharges has run into opposition from retailers, including Rite Aid, which recently paid a landmark settlement for such mistakes.
The bill, by freshman Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa), promises consumers a refund of 10 times the overcharge or $7.50, whichever is less, if they bring in their receipt within 15 days of purchase. It is scheduled to be heard today in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Consumer surveys have consistently shown that customers are more likely to be overcharged than undercharged by the computerized scanners. In 1997, the California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG) reported that Los Angeles County was the main trouble spot in the state.
Early this year, Rite Aid agreed to pay $2.1 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Kern County that alleged the stores had a pattern of scanner errors.
Yet just four months later, in a May 12 memorandum to the Appropriations Committee, a Rite Aid Corp. representative called the bill’s $7.50 penalty “unnecessary and excessive.”
“We would point out that there already exists adequate criminal sanctions that can be levied against retailers who intentionally overcharge customers,” the letter said.
Lobbyist Kathleen Snodgrass, whose firm sent the memorandum, said she took a position on the company’s behalf only because another retail lobbyist asked her to.
CalPIRG spokesman Jon Golinger accused the pharmacy company of hypocrisy, saying, “It’s not clear at all that they’ve learned their lesson.”
The bill, based on a 20-year-old Michigan law, simply gives stores an added financial incentive to obey existing California laws against overcharging, Golinger said.
Rite Aid officials couldn’t be reached for comment.
Rite Aid has been joined in its opposition by the California Grocers Assn., which Wiggins originally believed would support the bill as long as she made several changes--including the $7.50 penalty cap. Instead, the grocers now want more changes to preclude any additional liability whenever they pay the refund.
Wiggins said that so far she is disinclined to make the change because she believes that it could prevent investigators from using the overcharge as proof in broader legal actions.
“We have made every concession to try to make this a bill [the grocers] could support,” she said. “But this is a consumer protection bill.”
The bill’s prospects today remain uncertain. Two attempts to address price scanner inaccuracies failed in the Appropriations Committee last year. However, the committee makeup has changed, and both previous bills were stricter--one created a fine of $1,000 or more and the other included neither a cap nor the 15-day limit on refund requests.
In addition, the California Retailers Assn., which opposed last year’s bills, has so far taken a neutral position on the Wiggins bill.
