Just change the price to whatever you want using a flipper zero and the linked app.
It’s a bit half-baked though because it wouldn’t change the db figures… so I guess it would have to be coupled with some social engineering.
Just change the price to whatever you want using a flipper zero and the linked app.
It’s a bit half-baked though because it wouldn’t change the db figures… so I guess it would have to be coupled with some social engineering.
Oh I read db as decibel for whatever reason and was thinking this was about transmission power etc lmao
The success likely depends on where in the world you are. In Europe, consumers have a right to advertised prices so in the absence of a shop suspecting shenanigans they would have to honor the displayed price.
In the US, a shop would likely brush you off and say the cash register trumps… claim immunity from price mistakes, etc.
Note that I have seen these tags malfunction. I bought something because of an advertised promo which was correctly reflected on the e-price tag on the shelf. But the cash register tried to charge more, which suggests the cash register is not always in sync with the shelf prices anyway. I had to lead the cashier to the shelf to show the correct price. And they honored it. So if I were a flipperzero-wielding swindler, I could have just as well done a manipulation.
In the US, they put the item aside and send another employee over to check the price tag.
I guess that depends on local law, pretty sure here in Germany, pricing mistakes are nothing the seller must honor, you as the customer are free not to buy. https://www.focus.de/immobilien/wohnen/falsche-preisauszeichnung-muessen-sie-trotzdem-den-richtigen-preis-zahlen_a0f9868d-30c0-45f0-b25e-27893a11b914.html it’s called invitatio ad offerendum, the legal procedure is that the buyer proposed a price at checkout and the seller agrees or doesn’t, in practice this is never done but there was actually a ruling some years ago that due to this, the buyer is free to haggle at checkout. All prices in the store are just a suggestion by the merchant to the buyer as to which price he should suggest at checkout, but again he’s not obligated to take that offer.
So in Germany I suppose a shop can place an ad “new laptops for €80” to get a lot of people in the shop, correct? Then say “sorry, the real price is €800”. And there’s no legal recourse for that tactic?
Shops in the US will do that but to get around the truth-in-advertising laws they will just have one unit in stock which is used as a loss leader to fill the store with customers. So the first person gets lucky and everyone else wasted their time.
There is a law against misleading advertisement regarding price ( UWG §5 2 Section 2) but that law requires intent, it doesn’t apply on case of honest mistakes. Also this was about the price tag in stores, not advertisements
From where I sit it’s a basic violation of contract law. Suppose I offer you a laptop for €80. You accept. Then I say “actually, I change my mind… I didn’t mean to make the price so low”. In the US (and probably many countries), the contract is legally binding.
If I offer you a laptop for €80 and you stand there and ponder whether you want to accept, and then I say “actually, I change my mind” before you accept, that’s legal. An offer can always be retracted before it is accepted. But once it is accepted, both parties are committed and only a mutual agreement to nullify can reverse it.
So I must say I would be afraid to engage in contracts in Germany given that offers can apparently be retracted after they are accepted.
It’s the same thing. A price tag is an advertisement in its simplest form. It is also an offer. I’m a bit baffled that Germany can deviate so strangely being in the EU. It sounds like honest mistakes don’t have a specific protection, IIUC it’s just the absence of a prohibition that makes them feasible. But how can contract law miss this? There will probably be many more price mistakes (and “mistakes”) as more and more shops adopt dynamic price tags for various shenanigans.
There will be a lot more offer mistakes by robots in the future. The states under right-wing control will side with the corporations and give them immunity to promises made by bots. Liberal controlled states will force corps to honor promises made by bots.
You might be interested in this past thread involving Flixbus:
https://slrpnk.net/post/27072322
The actual legal construct is that you offer a notebook and then say “I suggest you offer me 80€ for this laptop”. I do it, but at this point, only I have agreed to the trade. You are still free to decline and ask a higher price.
The chatbot thing is the same. Flix offered a ride through their bot, and the other side offered nothing. Since both agreed, the trade became valid. The court didn’t rule in the customer’s favor because this was unlawfully advertised, but because both parties agreed to a trade they negotiated.
Certainly that is possible for a seller to structure a transaction that way with careful word choices, but surely that is not how a court would view a price tag on a product that is for sale in a store. I do not approach the cash register and make an offer. It’s non-verbal. I put the product in front of the cashier and say nothing. Why? Because the offer was already made. I am merely accepting.
If you were a grocery shop owner, you would not want customers making offers. Imagine people showing up to the conveyor belt with a list of quoted prices making different offers for each item. The time consumption and error proneness of it would alone cost you a lot of money.
You seem confused. The court did rule in the customer’s favor in the Canadian airline case – and rightfully so. Flix has a popup that attempts to flip such decisions in advance. It remains a question whether that trick would actually work the way Flixbus lawyers hope it will. But they can only do so much.
It is actually exactly how the courts view this
That’s what I said. A court would rule in the buyer’s favor even under the German system because the bot did not advertise or made a negotiation suggestion, but agreed on a negotiated trade.
Whether that clause Flix uses is enough to rule out such cases remains to be seen I guess.