Subpoenaed documents "clearly establish that Best Buy's deceptive practice is continuing and rampant. Aggressive marketing of the public Price Match Policy without revealing the anti-price-match dictates that [Best Buy] has imposed on its managers and employees results in irreparable harm to consumers," Attorney Gary Graifman wrote in the federal brief.
Best Buy has yet to reply to the filing and it's unlikely that U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon would issue such an order, given other less invasive options, including simply letting the case play out. Still, it's an unusual request. We have here a consumer rights lawsuit that, ironically, is asking that a price-match program be effectively shut down.
Plaintiff attorneys are arguing that the order is needed to prevent more consumers from being defrauded. Best Buy's position has been that the proven fraud examples are isolated and that the program, by and large, is honestly executed.
Last week, Forrester issued a report stressing the importance of retail price-match programs. Indeed, the existence of such programs has all but eliminated, Forrester wrote, consumer objections to online-offline price differences. Well, that and a big heap of consumer apathy.
Documents surrendered by Best Buy during legal discovery established what all retailers already know, namely that pricematch programs can erode profit margins while simultaneously boosting other sales and that managers and employees can get carried away with efforts to dissuade lawful uses of the program. The question has been: Are such frauds coordinated and even orchestrated by senior Best Buy management or is it merely the work of a few errant workers and managers?
Depending on what the judge does, the lawsuit could have implications for other retail price-match programs.