BevMo Accused of Bait and Switch

A class-action suit has been filed that alleges BevMo! engaged in a “bait-and-switch,” displaying price signage for bottles with wine ratings for specific years that weren’t the years for sale on the shelf.

“It says 2013 on the red BevMo! tag but the bottle is 2014 and I would never have caught that,” said Nicole Rodriguez-Gasperov, a consumer.

Via hidden camera, CBS2/KCAL9 followed Rodriguez-Gasperov as she shopped the wine aisle at her Manhattan Beach BevMo!

“Look here, ‘Malbec Mendoza 2012’ and the bottle ‘2013.’ That is crazy. How could they do that?” she asked. “The product should be what exactly it says it’s selling.”

But what Rodriguez-Gasperov found again and again were price signs with wine ratings for specific years that didn’t match the actual bottles for sale on the shelf.

“So this is saying this brand, ‘Red Blend 2013’ for $17.95. The bottle says it’s a ‘2012,’ ” Rodriguez-Gasperov said.

Like many customers, she says she relies on those price signs with reviews and vintage ratings to decide if she is shelling out good money or not for the best wine.

“You know I’m reading the description and it’s a great bottle of cab, a 2011, and then I go to grab it, if I don’t notice it’s a 2012 and I get home, the year matters,” she said. “And if it’s not right, then you kinda feel like you’ve been swindled a little bit.”

The news station took a hidden camera into four more BevMo! locations and found the same thing: bottle after bottle, price signs with great reviews for specific years that weren’t the years available for sale on the shelf.

The clerk at the Studio City BevMo! blamed it on incorrect signage.

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: “So, I noticed this review is for the 2014. Do you have those?”

BevMo! Studio City Clerk: “I do not. What ends up happening is they update the signs either too slow or too fast.”

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: “So, it’s just that the sign is wrong?”

BevMo! Studio City Clerk: “Correct. The same price will still carry over.”

And the clerk at the BevMo! in Burbank offered an entirely different story.

BevMo! Burbank Clerk: “It’s the same wine with a new label.”

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: “So, it doesn’t matter what year it is?”

BevMo! Burbank Clerk: “It does. But some is aged from 2011 to 2013.”

The clerk went on to say that the year printed on the price sign is the year the wine won a competition.

CBS2/KCAL9 Producer: “So, it doesn’t matter what year?”

BevMo! Burbank Clerk: “It’s not the year of the wine. It’s the year of the competition.”

None of these explanations sit well with Attorney Scott Glovsky, who has filed a class-action lawsuit against BevMo!

“We’re suing BevMo! because BevMo! is engaging in an intentional, systemic, bait-and-switch fraud throughout the state of California,” Glovsky said. “And then ultimately when people go to buy the wine, the wine sitting on the shelf behind those signs is a different wine. It’s a different vintage and so essentially it’s a bait-and-switch.”

Glovsky said it’s not just in-stores but online, too.

CBS2 found more than 40 interoffice BevMo! emails dating back to 2010 in that court file regarding in-store and online customers.

One states: “customer who is very upset that every time he places an online order he is given different vintages than what he requested. He also makes sure to mark ‘no’ where it states ‘allow vintage substitution.’ ”

“It’s clear that when consumers would uncheck the box, that says ‘allow vintage substitution,’ so they’re specifically telling BevMo! that, ‘I want the wine you’re advertising, not a different wine,’ they would still be given the wrong wines when they went to the store to pick up the wines,” Glovsky said.

In court documents, BevMo! says it prominently displays a disclaimer regarding vintage substitution.

But the disclaimers the news station saw were so small, our buyer didn’t even notice them.

BevMo! told CBS2:

“While we cannot comment on pending litigations, BevMo! does our best to exercise best practices within the industry and to provide quality products and services to our customers. We always recommend customers check the bottle for vintage if they are looking for a certain vintage.”

“I would just tell my girlfriends and my husband: when you go, make sure you read the labels and ask, ‘This says 2011 but the bottle’s a 2012. Are you out of the 2011? What am I getting,’ ” Rodriguez-Gasperov said.

Randy this may end up leading to new law(s).

Class Action Lawsuit = Attorneys trying to get a big payday

I’ve seen the same thing at local stores, although not so rampant it’s an epidemic deserving of a class action suit.

image.jpeg
Last week at Total Wine. Completely different wine on the shelf vs. the shelf taker rating.

I don’t know how Bevmo does it but when I worked retail the distributors would constantly hang shelf talkers with the wrong vintage or no vintage. I had to be very vigilant about it. If I missed one and a customer noticed, it made me look like an idiot, not the person who put it up.

Tons of places do this, including Costco. My gut feeling on this is If the shelf talker specifically indicates which vintage the review is for, then the lawsuit will fail. That said, we’re all savvy wine buyers here, especially when compared to the general public. Such shelf-talkers are misleading, and it would be great to see an end to such tactics.

Paul,
That’s a pretty dark view. Much good has come from class action lawsuits over the years. They exist for a reason, and it’s not to make attorneys rich.

Advertising a product not available for sale and placing a shelf talker with the wrong vintage (which does, or reasonably could mislead consumers) could easily be considered a misleading and unfair business practice.

The few class action law suits I’ve been part of netted me pocket change while the attorneys collected huge fees. The company at fault might end up paying through the nose for their misdeed, but the consumer who got screwed rarely, if ever, gets compensated correctly. Paul is absolutely correct in saying the lawyers benefit the most.

I feel like Costco does it to show the wines track record over multiple years. I like more data points. They typically show scores from multiple years, and sometimes sources, and often note explicitly when the vintage they are selling has no rating.

I agree. But, you will note, even you used the word “could.” [wink.gif]

Brian it is a reasonable person standard as you know. Plus the expose definitively proves that one or more people were actually misled.

I will concede that class action plaintiffs rarely get compensated to the tune of anything more than chump change. However, the part in bold, above, is one of two important points here. The other important point is protection for future consumers. Class actions help deter companies from systemic “small” misdeeds, and punish greatly those companies who take the chance on committing such misdeeds. Without the class action, many (heck, Most) of these “small misdeeds” would persist without deterrence or punishment, to the detriment of consumers.

The attorneys get paid a lot because (1) being an attorney involves specialized skills that are generally acquired only by way of very expensive schooling; (2) one must pass rigorous testing to become licensed to practice law; and (3) class actions are no walk in the park – a lot of time and effort goes into bringing such suits. It bears noting: generally speaking, if the class action fails then the lawyer/firm who brought the class action does not get paid at all.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. If the consumers collectively agreed to pay a reasonable hourly rate of say 300-400 and all out of pocket expenses, win or lose, they may or may not come out ahead. Of course that will never happen so contingency is the best vehicle. In the end, the business pays and is less likely to engage in similar misconduct in the future which benefits everyone.

Devil’s Advocate: but if you can read the review text then you can also read the vintage right next to the text.
Response: some folks simply look at the numerical rating, and don’t read the text.


Again, it’s a practice I would like to see come to an end. But, part of me does wonder if many consumers wouldn’t actually want other-vintage shelf-talkers in lieu of no shelf-talkers at all. I can picture it now:
Customer: What rating did this get?
Salesperson: That vintage hasn’t been rated yet.
Customer: Well, what rating did the previous vintage(s) get?

Now, if the vintage on the shelf has been rated, that’s a slightly different situation …

How much quality (or point score) variation do you think there is in different vintages of Malbec Mendoza and Red Blend? That category is blended to be consistent.

That would make it hard to prove damages.

I would think so.

But you still have to prove damages. If it’s an 83-point 2012 Mendoza versus an 83-point 2013, the plaintiffs have a problem.

I guess the big retailers bulk print the shelf talkers and it would be a lot of extra effort to add a disclaimer?

I appreciate what Rob @ Down to Earth Wines does in his emails - “…Allan Meadows for the 2013, NOT THE 2014 OFFERED HERE (no press yet on the '14…)”.

This address both the ‘bait and switch’ and the consumer desire for a track record.

(Yes, I know these are completely different operating models although both sell wine)

OMG, you mean the vintages change?