Groupon Sued For Having Short Expirations On Coupons
from the class-action-madness dept
While I'm still not as convinced as some that Groupon really is a sustainable long-term business, it is an interesting one to watch. And, with any massively successful business, it's no surprise that lawsuits -- especially of the class action type -- follow. The latest is that Groupon is being sued for having its deals expire too soon under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. That act does include a provision that gift cards cannot expire for at least five years. So it seems that the basis of this class action is to claim that the deals offered by Groupon are the equivalent of a "gift card," rather than a standard coupon, which can expire in much shorter time frames.This seems like a pretty big stretch. It's not hard to see that Groupon is much closer to offering a coupon for sale, rather than a gift card. Furthermore, if we just look at the reasoning behind this provision in the law, again, that suggests this lawsuit is frivolous. The idea behind the five year expiry on gift cards is that it's often not entirely clear when those cards expire (they're often not marked) and since they work differently than a coupon (i.e., stored value of some kind, rather than a discount on a particular item) people often hold onto them for much longer. In this case, the expiration date of what's being sold is clearly stated, so comparing it to the situations with gift cards is misguided. The whole thing just seems like yet another attempt by class action lawyers to cash in at the expense of a successful company.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: class action, coupons, expirations, gift cards
Companies: groupon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There is a Big Difference
The Groupon gift cards are not cash equivalent, they are discounted offers for a specific product or services. They lock a retailer into a certain offer. The lawsuit is about a "certificate was good for 30 minutes of play for up to 10 people for $55." Discounted gift cards are not covered by CA law--I can't speak to the Federal law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"A Groupon is good until its expiration date; at that time, the merchant will still have to honor what you PAID (NOT face value), for five years or in accordance with state law. It's five years in Illinois, and that's the most strict in the country, so that's what we ask merchants to abide by.
So if I spend $20 to buy a $40 Groupon for one dozen roses at Flower Shop, when it expires the merchant owes me a $20 credit to their store. They don't have to give it to me in one dozen roses, but they do have to give me a credit (not cash) for what I paid."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-----------------
What happens if my Groupon expires?
All is not lost! Once a Groupon reaches its expiration date, it loses its promotional value, but you can still redeem it at the price you paid for the length of time stated by gift certificate laws in your state.
http://www.groupon.com/faq
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The suit has merit.
A groupon is only like a coupon, when you don't have to pay for it. If you are paying for the deal ahead of time, it's exactly like a gift card IMO.
-DeAngelo
www.cheerthis.com -hassle free sharing with NO login and infinite voting
www.SheenNation.com - hassle free Sheen sharing!
www.braincano.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mountain/Molehill.
"A Groupon is good until its expiration date; at that time, the merchant will still have to honor what you PAID (NOT face value), for five years or in accordance with state law. It's five years in Illinois, and that's the most strict in the country, so that's what we ask merchants to abide by.
So if I spend $20 to buy a $40 Groupon for one dozen roses at Flower Shop, when it expires the merchant owes me a $20 credit to their store. They don't have to give it to me in one dozen roses, but they do have to give me a credit (not cash) for what I paid."
I'm a big fan of Groupon and this policy was made clear when I joined. In addition, a similar statement prints on the Groupon itself so I don't really see that this guy does (or should) have a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a coupon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a coupon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, that is a valid point. But groupon easily gets around that, as noted above, by insuring that the cash value you paid doesn't expire--only the special deal. So to the extent it is a pre-paid gift card you loose zero cash value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groupon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a coupon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You paid $20 for $20. The coupon provides an additional value beyond that (ex. $20 for $40)."
Except it may not. Groupon isn't actually generous, they only do that to the extent required by state law--and not all states have gift card laws. So, given that they recognize this issue, and say that the cash value remains, depending on state law, maybe they are vulnerable to a federal class actions suit.
It is more complex than I initially thought. :-p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a coupon
In marketing, a coupon is a ticket or document that can be exchanged for a financial discount or rebate when purchasing a product.
Ergo, a coupon.
Its a *pre-paid* gift certificate or card.
Yes, it's that, as well. Isn't it grand how items can be multiple things at once?
A coupon implies that you only pay for the services at the time those services are rendered.
No, it doesn't.
Groupon offers *prepaid* services and they should be held to the laws that govern such things.
No one has said that they shouldn't be.
The question at hand is whether or not they've broken the law, since the portion that you pay for expires just like a gift certificate, according to the law. If you pay $20 for the Groupon, you keep that $20 as long as the law requires.
In fact, better than the law requires, because if the business closes, Groupon refunds you. If you purchased that certificate directly from the business, you'd be SOL.
Any questions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, Groupon extends the same protections to users in all states, according to what's required in the strictest state. In addition, they provide additional protections if a business closes or refuses to provide service.
...maybe they are vulnerable to a federal class actions suit.
Of course they're vulnerable to a lawsuit. That doesn't mean that the plaintiffs have a leg to stand on, just that they paid a filing fee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The suit has merit.
If you buy a groupon for $30 for a haircut that normally costs $60, and you let it expire, it's still worth $30, it's just not worth the $60.
And if it expires and you can't redeem it (say, service no longer offered or something), groupon will refund your money.
This lawsuit is a pure moneygrab.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then again, maybe not...
Not according to their own FAQ:
http://www.groupon.com/faq
But, you are right, they do have additional protections, they do say they will pay you back if you have a bad experience, I'm not sure if that includes "coupon expired" but it seems like it:
http://www.groupon.com/blog/cities/the-groupon-promise/
Which would seem to make the lawsuit redundant. But the law isn't so simple. If something violates the law, it doesn't necessarily matter if there is a policy that offers some mitigation, the company may still be in violation. However, given the generous refund policy, damages would seem to be nill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Then again, maybe not...
Anyway, as I previously pasted, this is from Groupon's spokesperson:
A Groupon is good until its expiration date; at that time, the merchant will still have to honor what you PAID (NOT face value), for five years or in accordance with state law. It's five years in Illinois, and that's the most strict in the country, so that's what we ask merchants to abide by.
In short, they ask merchants to abide by the law in the strictest state.
Again, there is a much lengthier and more detailed summary of their policies printed on every Groupon. I suggest that you find a copy and read it in full, instead of relying on a small FAQ blurb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groupon Deals
[ link to this | view in thread ]
groupon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, every time I'm out 50 bucks...
I'm thinking that someone with that mentality isn't really going to "get" Whirlyball, no matter what the price is. Their concepts of "fun" and "fair play" are hopelessly skewed.
Odd set of ideals over at the Whirlyball site: You apparently can't play while intoxicated but they do recommend Whirlyball for "cocktail parties" and "St. Patrick's Day." Maybe the rules bend when you're getting drunk on their dime.
http://www.whirlyball.com/what/cantplay.php
http://www.whirlyball.com/who/
Another fun fact: Intoxication is a "condition" on par with cardiac disease and pregnancy.
Which leads to another theory: perhaps if the complainant had been able to sober up by the expiration date, the situation could have been avoided. Or hit their due date. Whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What Groupon sells is discounted pre-paid services. As such, it falls much more closely to the idea of pre-paid gift card or other, and is subject to those rules.
Now, here is an even better question: Does Groupon only pay the retailer when the coupon is used, or do they pay them on sales of coupons up front?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yeah, every time I'm out 50 bucks...
For the purposes of this game, yes, absolutely. It makes perfect sense. The term condition, in this context, refers to the state of health or fitness. All of these conditions are equal - or on par - in the sense that they're all conditions that would make this game too dangerous for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Really? Can you show me a definition that says that? Preferably a legal definition. Thanks.
What Groupon sells is discounted pre-paid services. As such, it falls much more closely to the idea of pre-paid gift card or other, and is subject to those rules.
No one has stated that Groupons are not subject to laws surrounding gift certificates, not even Groupon. In fact, Groupon specifically references those laws in their fine print on the bottom of every Groupon.
Now, here is an even better question: Does Groupon only pay the retailer when the coupon is used, or do they pay them on sales of coupons up front?
Retailers are paid around the time of purchase, not at use. I can't see why it's relevant, though. Will you expound on this line of thinking? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Federal law says...
`(i) redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated group of merchants that share the same name, mark, or logo;
`(ii) issued in a specified amount that may not be increased or reloaded;
`(iii) purchased on a prepaid basis in exchange for payment; and
`(iv) honored upon presentation by such single merchant or affiliated group of merchants for goods or services.
------
So, Groupon's coupon is a gift certificate. The law also says that it shall be unlawful to issue a gift certificate with an expiration date less than 5 years.
The purpose of this law is to protect the consumer from buying a gift certificate only to discover that it has expired before you can use it. This is a familiar bait and switch tactic. The fact that Groupon or the vendor will give you something else of equal value is irrelevant. You paid for something and they refused to deliver.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"
1.
a portion of a certificate, ticket, label, advertisement, or the like, set off from the main body by dotted lines or the like to emphasize its separability, entitling the holder to something, as a gift or discount, or for use as an order blank, a contest entry form, etc.
2.
a separate certificate, ticket, etc., for the same purpose."
Not legal, but you get the idea.
Groupon cannot, in their terms, override applicable law. That is, if there is law about pre-paid sales (even discount) in a state, those laws will always apply, no matter the terms as written.
Retailers are paid around the time of purchase, not at use. I can't see why it's relevant, though. Will you expound on this line of thinking? :)
The line of thinking here is pretty easy. If Groupon only paid on redeemed coupons, they would have a big motivation to sell short term items that expire rapidly, to avoid actual delivery while retain the funds. If they pay out on purchase, the motivation is more on the retailer than groupon. Of course, if the redemption level is lower, the net cost to the retailer is less as well, because they have more income to cover their special. (sell 100 coupons for $50 off. If people pay for 100 of them and redeem only half of them in the allotted time, the effective cost is almost zero).
If groupon was giving away coupons and collecting on redemption only, they wouldn't have any issues. But since they are selling a "cash value" gift certificate of sorts, it is pretty hard for them to avoid state law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Then again, maybe not...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groupon's not a coupon
In general, You do not purchase a coupon - a merchant gives you a coupon. Therefore, the merchant can create their own rules.
A discounted gift card is purchased, so consumer protection laws protect the purchaser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Then again, maybe not...
Many users go to their profile and click straight through to their comments to see responses, as opposed to slogging through entire threads. That's why it looks bad, not because you didn't quote me.
...and responded to it thoroughly that seems like a really stupid and unfounded accusation on your part.
It may seem like an accusation - to someone who didn't actually read what I wrote. To everyone else, it looks like a simple exchange of information to a newcomer.
I read the comments flat rather than nested, so the reply feature is not something I generally think of as relevant.
I gathered that, which I why I took a moment to to tell you how it looks to the rest of us.
Perhaps it would behoove you not to presume nefarious motivations on the part of others.
Pot? This is the kettle. You're black.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Could that be because coupons don't have to be 'free give aways'?
1. a portion of a certificate, ticket, label, advertisement, or the like, set off from the main body by dotted lines or the like to emphasize its separability, entitling the holder to something, as a gift or discount, or for use as an order blank, a contest entry form, etc.
2. a separate certificate, ticket, etc., for the same purpose."
Not legal, but you get the idea.
Yes, I do get the idea. I hope you get the idea as well. The idea being that I was right and the definition of a coupon has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with value.
Groupon cannot, in their terms, override applicable law. That is, if there is law about pre-paid sales (even discount) in a state, those laws will always apply, no matter the terms as written.
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with this case. This case is not about pre-paid services or sales. It's about whether or not Groupon is treating their gift certificate sales legally.
The line of thinking here is pretty easy. If Groupon only paid on redeemed coupons, they would have a big motivation to sell short term items that expire rapidly, to avoid actual delivery while retain the funds. If they pay out on purchase, the motivation is more on the retailer than groupon.
I see. You were looking for an ulterior motive on Groupon's part. :P
Of course, if the redemption level is lower, the net cost to the retailer is less as well, because they have more income to cover their special. (sell 100 coupons for $50 off. If people pay for 100 of them and redeem only half of them in the allotted time, the effective cost is almost zero).
No, Groupon takes a nice chunk out of it. I've heard it's something like like 50% but I don't have any firm numbers there.
But since they are selling a "cash value" gift certificate of sorts, it is pretty hard for them to avoid state law.
Again and again and again and again and again and again... Well, first time to you, but oh, man, again on this thread.
Groupon has not claimed to be above those laws. Groupon claims to be strictly following those laws. I know that we usually see cases where companies try to claim that certain laws don't apply to them, but this isn't one of those cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Federal law says...
`(ii) issued in a specified amount that may not be increased or reloaded;
The fact that Groupon or the vendor will give you something else of equal value is irrelevant. You paid for something and they refused to deliver.
Incorrect, according to yourself. If a gift certificate is for an amount, not an item and you keep the amount for five years, as required by law, then where's the refusal to deliver?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And some of us read the threads flat--so we see all the comments in the order they were posted--so we can just read the new ones without having to slog through entire nested threads.
It seems to me that you were being pompus over not having my reply where you wanted it. Too bad. It isn't all about you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not a coupon
In fact, better than the law requires, because if the business closes, Groupon refunds you. If you purchased that certificate directly from the business, you'd be SOL.
This is actually what sinks them. You are effectively buying a groupon gift card, redeemable at X. You have to pay the full amount of the purchase up front. If the business folds, groupon refunds you. Seems like a pre-paid card to me, and that in many places is a "no expiry" thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a coupon
Anyway, it may be a regular purchase, instead of a credit purchase, but if so, HR 627 no longer applies and contract law would kick in, meaning that the expiration is valid, since you agreed to it at purchase. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You replied with some BS about how I was obv. criticizing you (because attempts are help are criticism?) and then, ironically, telling me that I should refrain from attributing nefarious purposes to the actions of others. Now you've done that yourself something like twice more since then and I can't help but laugh at you.
Of course it's not about me. If it were about me, I wouldn't have attempted to relay any information to you. As for pompousness, again, you're black.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The suit has merit.
I was on the side of the people saying "This is a coupon!" until I figured out that you had to pay for it. Then, I realized "Hey, it's a gift card which does specific terms!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mountain/Molehill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not a coupon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The suit has merit.
To imply that Groupon is saying that it's not a gift certificate is intellectually dishonest. Groupon not only believes that they're selling fit cards, but they believe that they're following the law.
Again and again and again and again and again and again...
Groupon has not claimed to be above those laws. Groupon claims to be strictly following those laws. I know that we usually see cases where companies try to claim that certain laws don't apply to them, but this isn't one of those cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mountain/Molehill.
At this point, Christopher, I'm just copying and pasting things that I've already stated.
Again and again and again and again and again and again...
Groupon has not claimed to be above those laws. Groupon claims to be strictly following those laws. I know that we usually see cases where companies try to claim that certain laws don't apply to them, but this isn't one of those cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a coupon
That's certainly not true. Many entities legally sell books of coupons. There's no expectation of a cash value, so HR 627 doesn't apply.
If you do have to pay for them, then they are not coupons.... they are the equivalent of gift cards.
[Citation Needed.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The suit has merit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Massachusetts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
groupon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Class Act Lawsuit
[ link to this | view in thread ]