“Stop & Shop unfairly and deceptively advertised on its website that the Product would be sold for one price at all Stop & Shop stores while contemporaneously selling the Product at its stores for a higher price. The web prices and the in-store prices varied slightly among the Stop & Shop stores, but generally, the in-store prices were approximately $3.00 higher than the prices advertised on the website for the Product.”

💡 This establishes the systematic nature of the pricing discrepancy across multiple store locations.

“Stop & Shop’s website advertised prices for the Product were clearly communicated as prices for in-store purchases as well as online purchases; nowhere were these prices identified as online-only prices.”

💡 The company never disclosed that the advertised prices would not be honored in physical stores.

“If these purchasers asked Stop & Shop personnel at the store about the web price, they were told that the store would not honor the lower web price.”

💡 Store employees had clear instructions not to match the advertised online prices, proving this was company policy.

“For the purchasers who viewed the website and saw the web advertised price, Stop & Shop’s website prices for the Product constituted a form of ‘bait and switch’ pricing in which Stop & Shop advertised the Product with an intent not to sell it as advertised.”

💡 This characterizes the practice as a classic illegal bait-and-switch scheme under consumer protection law.

“In addition to being deceptive, this bait and switch pricing scheme was also an unfair practice; it is immoral, oppressive, unethical, and/or unscrupulous because it leaves the consumer with little or choice, in this case, a choice between two unfavorable alternatives.”

💡 The lawsuit establishes that the practice violated both deceptiveness and unfairness standards under consumer protection statutes.

“Such conduct is prohibited by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s regulation, promulgated pursuant to G.L., c. 93A, at 940 C.M.R., § 3.02 (1) (‘[n]o advertisement containing an offer to sell a product shall be made when the offer is not a bona fide offer to sell the advertised product’).”

💡 This identifies the specific regulation Stop & Shop allegedly violated, strengthening the legal foundation of the case.

“The Federal Trade Commission (‘FTC’) supports this proposition. See Trade Regulation on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 88 Fed. Reg., 77420, 77432 (‘when the initial contact with the consumer shows a lower . . . price without disclosing the total cost’ it remains deceptive’ even if the total cost is later disclosed’).”

💡 Federal regulators have explicitly stated that price discrepancies remain deceptive even when corrected at checkout.

“In the upper right-hand corner of the page, it would say, ‘In-Store at [the address of the selected store]’ (bold in original).”

💡 The website explicitly indicated prices were for in-store purchases at specific locations, making the deception more egregious.

“When Plaintiff visited the Stratford Store to buy the product, he discovered that it was being sold at the store for a price of $8.99 per bag and that the store would not honor the $5.79 web advertised price. Plaintiff then purchased the Product for the store posted price of $8.99.”

💡 This documents the concrete harm suffered by the named plaintiff, establishing standing for the lawsuit.

“On a date unknown to Plaintiff, but after Defendants’ receipt of Plaintiff’s demand letter pursuant to G.L., c. 93A, § 9(3) and prior to the filing of this Complaint, Stop & Shop ceased its differential pricing practice, and modified its web advertised prices to match the posted in-store prices. In so doing, Stop & Shop acknowledged the deceptive and unfair nature of its differential pricing for the Product.”

💡 Stop & Shop’s decision to change prices immediately after receiving legal notice suggests the company knew the practice was problematic.

“Defendants failed to make a reasonable offer of relief in response to Plaintiff’s demand letter and, in fact, did not respond at all to the demand.”

💡 The company’s failure to respond to the legally required demand letter strengthens claims for enhanced damages.

“Stop & Shop’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as alleged herein, were willful or knowing violations of G. L. c. 93A, § 2, within the meaning of G. L. c. 93A, § 9(3).”

💡 Willful violations allow for double or triple damages under Massachusetts consumer protection law.

“Stop & Shop Company is owned by Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V., based in the Netherlands.”

💡 This establishes the corporate ownership structure and parent company liability for systematic practices.

“Ahold Delhaize is one of the largest supermarket operators in the United States, operating more than 2,000 grocery stores under the retail banners Stop & Shop, Giant Food, Giant/Martin’s, Food Lion, and Hannaford.”

💡 The parent company’s size and sophistication make claims of ignorance about pricing discrepancies implausible.

“The reasonable consumer standard takes into account the context in which consumer transactions occur, including the fact that due to limited time, limited choices, and other factors, consumers (including grocery shoppers) often make quick decisions that do not always involve careful consideration of all available information-fully consistent with reasonable behavior.”

💡 This explains why consumers who paid the higher price were acting reasonably despite the price discrepancy.