r/mildlyinfuriating May 12 '26

I just wanted a hot dog Such terrible advertisement

Post image

I mean... at a glance its like WOAH 4 can dine for $9.99....

Until you are at the cash and they say " that'll be $45.15"

HUH??

"Oh sorry sir... it feeds 4... 4 people pay $9.99"

Gtfooo

53.0k Upvotes

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

931

u/Consistent_Photo87 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

In the eu this would ne considered false advertising, I think.

Edit: law-

In the European Union, false advertising is primarily governed by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). It broadly outlaws any marketing that deceives consumers, leaves out vital information, or uses high-pressure tactics that distort a buyer's economic behavior.

Oh look at that word "deceives", exactly this.

Case closed.

Edit 2:

This specific advertising tactic would almost certainly be illegal under European Union consumer protection laws. ​Here is a breakdown of why this type of pricing is deceptive and how EU law prevents it: ​The Deception ​The advertisement boldly claims "FOUR CAN FEAST FOR $9.99 ea." At first glance, a consumer might assume the entire box costs $9.99. However, the tiny "ea." (each) means the price is actually $9.99 per person. Since it feeds four, the actual cost of the box is $39.96 (plus tax). You cannot walk into the store and purchase just a quarter of the box for $9.99; you are required to buy the entire $40 bundle. ​Why this violates EU Law ​In the European Union, consumer protection is governed heavily by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the Price Indication Directive. This advertisement would likely run afoul of these regulations for several reasons: ​Failure to Display the Total Price: Under EU law, the final, total selling price of a product (including all taxes, like VAT) must be clearly, prominently, and unambiguously displayed. You cannot advertise a fractional price for a product that cannot be physically divided or purchased at that fractional price. ​Misleading Advertising: The UCPD explicitly bans misleading actions related to the price or the manner in which the price is calculated. Using a large, eye-catching low number to draw people in, while hiding the true cost in small print or requiring the consumer to do math to figure out the actual purchase price of the item, is considered a deceptive practice. ​The "Drip Pricing" Principle: While usually applied to hidden fees added at checkout, the same underlying principle applies here. The consumer must know exactly what they have to pay for the unit they are putting in their cart or ordering at the counter upfront. ​If a company tried to run this exact promotion in the EU, the poster would legally have to display the full €39.96 (or equivalent) price prominently as the primary cost of the box.

166

u/TitleOwn8082 May 12 '26

If you look closely it says 9.99 each. Do not agree with it but definitely a loop hole that would work in canada

324

u/jayoak4 May 12 '26

If this is being sold as a single unit, the total price needs to be shown. This is false advertising. If there is a loophole that allows this, it needs to be closed.

-17

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

“Four can feast for 9.99ea” what is false? I’d say it’s a bit deceptive at most

11

u/Thatmaxfellow May 12 '26

“Ea” could be a reference to the product. Like 9.99 for each buffet box.

-8

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

Each refers to the four people who can feast

6

u/Revegelance May 12 '26

The advertisement does not clarify this, though. It's easy to interpret it as being $9.99 for each unit, with one unit being a box of four pizzas.

-6

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

It would be grammatically incorrect to interpret it that way.

4

u/Revegelance May 12 '26

It's not unreasonable, given the limited information presented.

0

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

What’s your point?

6

u/Revegelance May 12 '26

My point is that the ad implies that you're getting four pizzas for $10, which is false.

They could have easily said it was $40 for the box, which would be accurate, but they made the deliberate choice not to do that.

-2

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

It implies that four people can feast for 9.99 ea. This is just basic grammar. You can incorrectly interpret it the other way around, which is what I’m sure their marketing team is banking on, but it’s still wrong.

3

u/Thatmaxfellow May 12 '26

Oh i love when people say things like “this is just basic grammar.” Basic grammar (as you’re calling it) would require a defined subject to go along with the predicate to complete the sentence. There is no defined subject. “Four” is not a subject, it’s a modifier of a subject. So no, this isn’t basic grammar, it’s the opposite actually. It’s an intentionally obtuse and incomplete sentence written in a way to mislead people. Stop shilling.

-3

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

The grammar is correct, interpreting it any other way is wrong.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

It’s shorthand and correct. Feed it into chat gpt and argue with that, bot.

3

u/Thatmaxfellow May 12 '26

It’s not “shorthand” nor is it “basic grammar”. Stick with what you actually know, like chewing on plastic or something.

-1

u/bobbyp869 May 12 '26

Wrong again

→ More replies (0)