Get $100 off a Wi-Fi system and a year of eero Plus with code _________.

[iacas]

The normal "1 Base + 2 Beacons" eero system is $399. Purchased separately, everything would cost $497.

And yet…

Now, in no way does that seem like "Get $100 and a year of eero Plus".

Am I wrong here? I expected to pay $299 and get a free year of eero Plus. You can't get to $100 either by taking $497-$399 or by saying the $99 eero Plus is free… and the word is AND; it doesn't say "get $100 off with a free year of eero Plus" or "via" or "for" or anything like that.

It says "and."

[Vinsk]

I saw it as ‘ For $100 less ( $98 actually) you get 1 base and 2 beacons and a year of WiFi. Normally that would all cost $497 but you paid $399. It’s a poor advertisement I believe. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I saw it as ‘ For $100 less ( $98 actually) you get 1 base and 2 beacons and a year of WiFi. Normally that would all cost $497 but you paid $399. It’s a poor advertisement I believe. 

No, purchased separately, they're $497.

But you can - without any coupon code whatsoever - get a base and two beacons for $399 right now, today. From Amazon. Directly from eero. Elsewhere. $399 is the standard package price of that 1+2 system.

So you're not saving even $1.

[Pretzel]

It depends on how exactly you read it, but I think that it would hold water from a legal standpoint. It feels kind of like the Oxford Comma thing that cost a Maine dairy company a huge amount of money because of ambiguous phrasing.

Do you read it as $100 off "a Wi-Fi system and a year of eero Plus" or do you read it as $100 off "a Wi-Fi system", and a year of eero Plus? Either reading is grammatically correct, but it would take a lot of arguing in a courtroom to prove that one or the other is legally correct since there doesn't seem to be much precedent that I can find for this type of thing.

Here's a good link discussing what constitutes deceptive advertising: https://www.classlawgroup.com/consumer-protection/false-advertising/deceptive-advertising/

Quote

The FTC, which is tasked with regulating advertising, has issued a Deception Policy Statement that says an ad is deceptive if it contains a claim – or fails to disclose important information – that:

• Is likely to mislead a "reasonable consumer" – that is, a typical person looking at the ad; and
• Is "material" – that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of "material" claims include representations about a product's price, safety, performance, features, or effectiveness.

I don't think this would be considered to mislead a "reasonable consumer" since it is grammatically correct either way you interpret the phrase. However, I do think their implementation of the discount would run afoul of the law.

They claim you can receive $100 off, but you didn't. You only got $99 off with the advertised coupon code. If they simply reduced the price in the cart of any order that contained a Wi-Fi system and eero Plus in it by $100 they might be able to get away with the ambiguity in the wording. They do not do this, however, and only offer $99 off when they advertised $100 off the purchase.

This is how I see it, simply as a layperson who has done a fair amount of reading into the law but holds no certification or formal education in law. I'd be interested in hearing input from someone with qualified legal expertise (such as @DeadMan?), but I can understand if they would prefer to not weigh in lest it be considered legal advice or if their areas of expertise differ from the subject of advertising law.

[DeadMan]

I think you can read it either way. I'm not an expert in advertising law at all, though, so I don't know if it would rise the level of deceptive advertising. It's probably less of a concern since you aren't locked into buying this before understanding exactly what the offer means. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I think you can read it either way. I'm not an expert in advertising law at all, though, so I don't know if it would rise the level of deceptive advertising. It's probably less of a concern since you aren't locked into buying this before understanding exactly what the offer means. 

I understand this. You can read it as (using parentheses to "group" things like you would in math):

• Get ($100 off) (an eero WiFi system and a year of eero Plus) - or -
• Get ($100 off an eero WiFi system) and (a year of eero Plus)

But still, there's no way to get to $100. At most it's $99 for the year of eero Plus.

[DeadMan]

Yeah, they are missing a dollar. Maybe they'll give you three and a half days extra of eero plus for free?

Edited March 11, 2019 by DeadMan

[Hardspoon]

FWIW, my initial read was that you'd get $100 off the PACKAGE of the Wi-Fi system and year subscription...but definitely one of those things you can "see" either way.

They are clearly $1 short, though (long?)

 

[Yukari]

Class action lawsuit over a missing $1???