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.

  • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      but surely that is not how a court would view a price tag on a product that is for sale in a store

      It is actually exactly how the courts view this

      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.

      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.

      • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        It is actually exactly how the courts view this

        That’s abusive. How did the German courts get so pro-corporate bent against human beings? I know right-wing conservatives have taken power in Germany as xenophobia is pegged to the max, but I would expect the courts to be a more stable progression. More reasonable. It’s obviously absurd to say a price tag is not an offer but a suggested price to solicit an offer.

        This perversion somewhat creates a bit of justification for shoplifting in Germany.

        • Laser@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          No store I know about actually uses this on a regular basis, programmable price tags are usually only used to reflect special offers. The only sectors making regular use of dynamic pricing are ticket sales, be it concerts or flights or whatever.

          Interesting enough, if you decide to put a price tag on goods (which every store does for obvious reasons) it has to include tax.

          Also, the courts view it like this because this is the actual law, not their interpretation.