Local officials have just given Walmart shoppers 5.6 million reasons to keep a close eye on price tags and what they’re charged at the register.
Four California counties have settled a consumer protection lawsuit against the retail giant, accusing it of charging customers more than the shelf price for various products, and mislabeling weighted goods to charge shoppers for more than what they were actually getting.
The Consumer Protection Units of the District Attorneys of San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara and Sonoma counties filed suit against Walmart last month, alleging violations of the state’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws. Their complaint alleged that Walmart had charged customers higher prices than those posted on the shelf. “Walmart also had issues with inaccurate weights on their product labels,” the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office explained. “Some items sold by weight such as produce, baked goods, and other prepared items had less product in the package than indicated on the label.”
Without admitting wrongdoing, Walmart agreed to settle the case, paying $5.5 million in civil penalties, and nearly $140,000 to cover the costs of the investigation.
As the nation’s largest retailer, with about 4,600 stores across the country, Walmart has often settled similar cases making similar allegations. Back in 2012, Walmart paid the state of California $2.1 million for overcharging consumers in violation of an earlier agreement. According to the terms of a 2008 judgment, shoppers were entitled to $3 off the lowest advertised price of any item for which they were overcharged at the register. Those terms were extended by a year after the state found Walmart had failed to comply.
More recently, Colorado and Nevada both announced settlements with Walmart in 2023. The retailer agreed to pay $3 million to Colorado after failing nine out of 17 state price accuracy inspections. It paid $2 million more to Nevada after the state argued that Walmart employees were updating prices in their point-of-sale system without changing the shelf tags to match.
And New Jersey’s Attorney General announced last year that Walmart agreed to pay $1.64 million to resolve allegations that the retailer displayed unlawful, inaccurate and mismatched unit prices at the shelf.
Walmart has also settled lawsuits brought by shoppers. Last year, for the second time in recent years, Walmart agreed to set up a multimillion-dollar fund to reimburse shoppers who claimed they were overcharged. That case involved alleged discrepancies between the unit prices displayed on Walmart’s meat and produce items, and the prices charged at the register. Most who submitted claims are eligible for $10 payments, which are still in the works but should be distributed soon.
The good news about the California settlement is that Walmart has agreed to “maintain employees who will be responsible for price and weight accuracy in California stores.” The bad news is that shoppers won’t be seeing any of that $5.6 million. Instead, the money will be going to the various counties that sued, to help “support future enforcement of consumer protection laws.”
Sonoma County District Attorney Carla Rodriguez praised the joint effort “to hold companies accountable, ensure that consumers get the benefit of their bargains, and enforce California’s robust consumer protection laws.”
“When someone brings an item to the register to be scanned, the price must be right,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen added. “They expect it. California expects it. My office expects it – and we will apply the law to make sure of it.”
Interestingly, just two years ago, the Colorado and Nevada settlement announcements noted that “Walmart’s in-store pricing system relies heavily on store associates manually updating price changes.” But now, the California settlement notes that all Walmart stores in the state will soon have electronic shelf labels that can be updated at the touch of a button. Some critics are concerned that could lead to surreptitious price increases that cost shoppers more at the register. But the California settlement considers the electronic labels a way to ensure greater pricing accuracy.
It seems the drawbacks and benefits of new technology are in the eye of the beholder. But if it works, all sides are hoping this price-inaccuracy settlement just might be the last.
Image source: Forsaken Fotos 
So they rip the customers off, pay a settlement, and the ripped off customers don’t see a dime, it all goes to the crooked thieving politicians to be embezzled by themselves and their cronies.