On 8th November, An offer for loyalty card holders appeared on the website of European electronics retailer Mediaworld. The deal: An iPad Air for 15 euros (about $17) instead of the usual €879 (about $1,012). No grip, no bond attached. The proximity of Black Friday only made this offer all the more plausible. And so many consumers bought the product immediately, choosing the safest “pay and pickup in store” option on paper to avoid unexpected problems.
The process was seamless for those ordering online as well. According to some users’ accounts on Reddit, their order was accepted, and after about 40 minutes they received an email confirming the availability of the product.
In the store, the €15 payment was made successfully and Mediaworld delivered the iPad as expected. The terms and conditions attached to the order do not contain any mention of any clause regarding pricing errors or the possibility of the Company requesting additional additions at a later date.
Introduction-Face of Mediaworld
However, eleven days later, Mediaworld sent a simple email – no formal communication via certified mail – stating that the published price was “clearly incorrect.” The company then asked affected customers to choose one of two solutions: keep the iPad and the price difference in line, but with a discount of €150, or return it and receive a refund of €15 and a €20 discount voucher for their inconvenience.
Mediaworld reaction
Following the incident, Wired contacted Mediaworld for comment. “We confirm that, in a very short period of time, due to an extraordinary and unexpected glitch on our e-commerce platform caused by a clearly identifiable technical error, certain products were mistakenly displayed at prices that should never have been displayed, due to their clear and purposeful disconnect from the actual market price and the true promotional price. This was a clear error, making it financially unsustainable and is not representative of our commercial offering,” a Mediaworld spokesperson explains.
Regarding the subsequent intervention in an attempt to recover the sold products, the representative said: “Based on the provisions of the existing regulations, we found it necessary to intervene by resorting to the legal principle aimed at preserving the contractual balance in the event of an error of this magnitude. Our approach was to prioritize the relationship with the customer and to offer solutions that went beyond the mere application of the law. For this reason, we immediately contacted all affected buyers, proposing two options.”
A Mediaworld spokesperson also confirmed the two solutions first exposed by Reddit users: “We offer product retention: the customer has the option to keep the purchased item by paying the difference between the price paid and the correct promotional price. We also offered an additional discount on the amount paid. Or return the product: The customer can choose to return the item free of charge, receiving a full refund of the amount already paid. In this case too, we Mediaworld Shopping Vouchers We strongly believe that these offers demonstrate our desire to support customers and maintain transparency and fairness as we continue to work towards improving the shopping experience and maximum security for our consumers.
Legal issue: Is the error actually detectable?
On the web, several lawyers point out that Article 1428 of the Italian Civil Code allows the annulment of a contract if the error is fundamental and recognizable. But according to consumer lawyer Massimiliano Donna, the issue is more subtle than it seems.
“The premise is that the November 19 letter – in which MediaWorld demanded the return or purchase of the iPad at approximately face value – is not a formal warning or formal notice, particularly if sent by ordinary mail, because it is an offer of a binary agreement. If the consumer ignores it, MediaWorld will evaluate whether to take formal action,” Donna claims.
“So the main issue is whether, from a legal perspective, Mediaworld’s claim is true or not. To void a contract, it is necessary to demonstrate the consumer’s awareness of the seller’s error being abused. But for this to be proof, it is not enough to claim that a 98 percent discount makes the error obvious in the eyes of the consumer.” Additionally, Donna also points to the fact that, “Prices today are not as standard as they once were. Everything is more variable between limited-time offers, flash sales, promotions, and competitions (offered primarily on social or apps), plus we are now in the middle of Black Friday discount season. Given these elements, perhaps we can consider it fair that the consumer thought about an advertising technique.”
How does Mediaworld test consumer awareness?
Donna also claims that there is no limit beyond which a customer should notice the fault: “There are other factors to consider. If the buyer is Mrs. Maria, who finds a deal and decides to take it, that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, it’s someone who buys five tablets and then immediately puts them back on sale, or even someone who resells electronics for a living, that’s another matter. In that case, Awareness of the mistake will be more apparent.”
He claims that the decisive issue is the identification of the error: “From a legal point of view, everything revolves around the buyer’s ability to recognize that the price was incorrect. This is the real decisive factor, which must be contextualized with regard to both the sales channel used by Mediaworld and the professionalism of the buyer.”
At the moment, the picture keeps changing: a public offering that went through without controversy, a U-turn that came via email a few days later, and a legal assessment that will revolve around whether the consumer was able to recognize the error or not.
This story originally appeared on WIRED Italia and is translated from Italian.