Talk:Bait-and-switch/Archives/2014

Not fraud as such

I would argue that bait and switch is not actually fraud. I'm not trying to defend the practice, but to classify it. If I agree to buy a computer and am given a closed box with something of no value in it I have clearly been defrauded. But if I respond to an advertised price and am encouraged to buy something different, possibly but not necessarily because the advertised item is claimed not to be available, I am not deceived into buying the substitute; my eyes are open. So I would remove the description of bait and switch as being fraud from the article. Also, the bait price does not need to be unprofitably low.

By the way, there is a large spectrum, from a genuine offer which genuinely sells out, to out-and-out deception. Pol098 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

yes it is fraud when undue pressure is applied, or prospective customers are told the item is not available when it never has been - this is at the root of a number of cases where inexpensive computers were offered - but only one (1) actual computer of that make and model is available in the entire chain, or store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.77.249 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Description is confusing and may have serious grammatical errors

The description summary is confusing. It should probably be something to the effect of:

In retail sales, a bait-and-switch is a form of fraud in which the party putting forth the fraud lures in customers by advertising a product or service at a low price or with many features, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available at the advertised price or with the assumed features. This use of this term has extended to similar situations outside of the marketing sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripzero (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a query about this line: "Advertising a sale while intending to stock a limited amount of, and thereby sell out, a loss-leading item advertised is legal in the United States." Should that actually be illegal and not legal? Is it a typo, or am I misunderstanding the definition section? Thanks for any clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.105.187 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I thiink this is pretty well explained in the article: if you state in the ad there are limited supplies, you probably are OK. So, for example, holding a sale to clear out seasonal stock is fine, as long as this is indicated. But if you only have a few items, and make like the advertised sale is something else, then you are subject to being charged with fraud. Also, offering rain checks if and when available stock runs out will tend to make things legal. Of course, details very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The point is that offering to sell an item at a low price when you have no intention of actually having the customer buy that item is a fraud.173.202.242.209 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)