Consumers should be alert to so-called “price-matching guaranty” scams.  There a few variations of these scams, but they all share the common theme of a consumer products merchant claiming that they will “match the price” of a competitor selling the same product.  The purpose of these claims is to lead you to believe that no one can offer a better deal than those offered by the “price-matching” seller.  However, while the claim is that the seller will match a lower price if you can find it, the reality is, it will often refuse to do so, even with an identical product.  How do they justify this kind of false and misleading advertising?

In one version of the price-matching scam, the merchant claims it will match the price of a competitor for any given product.  However, when you find the same product being sold by a competitor for a lower price, and ask the “price-matching” seller to match the lower price, it will refuse to do so, on the basis that the competitor’s product is “not an exact match.”  Even though the product really is identical, the scamming seller will create a “non-exact match” by “bundling” the same product with some kind of “free” cheap trinket.  As an example, imagine you find a TV for sale at “price-matching” seller for $1000.  It comes with a “free” bottle of screen cleaner (really worth $4.99).  You find the same exact television for sale at competitor’s store for $900.  When you tell the “price-matching” merchant to match the price in accordance with its guarantee, they will refuse, simply because the competitor’s store isn’t giving away the $4.99 bottle of screen cleaner.  Of course, the $4.99 bottle of screen cleaner does not equal the $100 price difference between the “price-matching” scam artist’s television and the competitor’s, but the artificial “inexact” match gives the unscrupulous seller a way out of keeping its promise to match the competitor’s price.

A more sophisticated variation of the price-matching scam involves the “price-matching” seller having items made up by the manufacturer with a specific model number code that is unique to versions of that product sold by the scam artist’s store.  Using the television example again, the seller would offer a television that is exactly the same as a television sold by its competitors in every respect except the model number code, which is often different by only one character.  So for example, the “price-matching” electronics store would sell a television with model number 1100-A-21-A for $1000.  Its competitor would sell the same exact television, but with model number 1100-A-21-B, for $900.  When you inform the “price-matching” seller of the better deal being offered by the competitor, and demand that it match the price, it will again refuse to do so, telling you that the television is not an “exact match” because the model code stamped on it is different by one character, even though the product is exactly the same in every meaningful way.

This type of false and deceptive advertising and sales practices are probable violations of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, which has powerful remedies for consumers who are victimized by such unscrupulous acts. If you aware of such a scam, or have had the misfortune of falling victim to one, you should consider contacting a consumer protection attorney.  Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. has extensive experience litigating consumer protection-related issues, and would be happy to consult with you if you have information about a scam like the one described above.

With the recent employment situation some unemployed people are willing to do an observation period by working for free for a company to see if the fit will work and a paid job would open up.  Recently, the New Hampshire Department of Labor had a wage claim by a woman who worked for 63.5 hours at a hair salon during her observation period.  She volunteered her time, but when she ultimately was unable to get a job she filed a wage claim for minimum wages that were never paid.  The Department of Labor ruled in favor of the employee and said that the employee had clearly been permitted to engage in work and therefore, was entitled to receive the minimum wage rate for the hours she claimed to have worked.  Another case, involving a landscape company, had a similar result where the owner’s girlfriend worked several hours a week to help out.  Thus, taking on an unpaid helper may result in their getting paid after all.

Electronic surveillance has become a nearly unavoidable fact of life.  When you consider an average person’s average day, it is likely that he or she has their activities recorded electronically several times per hour between the time they leave for work and the time they return home.  Chances are, their activities are subjected to being recorded even after they are in the “privacy” of their own dwelling.

When you stopped at the gas station to fuel your car, or a fast food drive-through to pick a breakfast on the go, there is a record kept.  You are likely video-taped, and if you use a credit card, there will a receipt with an electronic record.  It is not uncommon to hear on the evening news that a crook was tracked down because he used his credit card at a gas station or ATM card at a bank.

When you log onto your computer at work, it is likely that your employer has the ability to review your activities.  If you think you snuck in that game of solitaire without anyone knowing, you are probably wrong!  Your E-mail also leaves an electronic record, both on your machine, and of course with whoever you send it to.  E-mails have become a staple of employment and divorce cases, and factor heavily in many other forms of civil litigation as well.

Many people seem to forget that E-mails (as well as text messages and other forms of electronic communication), are preserved for posterity, and simply type out their stream of consciousness.  Doing so is a terrible mistake, and it is not uncommon for such mistakes to decide the outcome of a civil case.

It is just as common for people to forget that their physical actions are often video-recorded when in public, at the workplace, or even in certain private situations.  Keep an eye on Douglas, Leonard & Garvey’s website for cases involving video surveillance right here in New Hampshire.  They are sure to drive home the point of how important and damning video evidence can be.  Douglas, Leonard & Garvey has also been involved in cases where phone recordings (usually in the form of 911 calls, but also voice mail messages) have played decisive roles in the outcome of litigation.

During your commute to and from work, your comings and goings are recorded by electronic toll devices like EZ-Pass, and even your car keeps a record of how you drive, which can be downloaded if you get in an accident.  Even your home computer keeps a record of your web searches and other activities, which can be subjected to a forensic search if necessary in a civil or criminal case.

The moral of the story is to ask yourself this question on a regular basis:  “How would my next decision look, sound, or read on a video, audio, or other electronic record?”  If the answer is “not good,” then reconsider doing it, because it is just as likely as not that whatever it is you are doing, there will be an electronic record.