Chupa said:horizon6 said:Chupa said:horizon6 said:Sorry, this one sounds like it would be a victory basically for some lawyer.

How many have been denied a refund of a request for their membership fee if they were unsatisfied? Should memberships be sold only for the days they someone shops?

There are plenty of companies that display poor business practices. We'd be better off if more companies followed the high standards Costco sets.

To borrow there phrase, Costco is a company with 'a code of ethics that gives members, employees and suppliers priority before shareholders but has resulted in shareholder gains year after year'.

Do you think its ethical to charge people for the months not used b/c they let their membership lapse? Let me put it in simpler terms... if you subscribed to a magazine for a year then let it lapse. The magazines stop coming, of course. Then 6 months later you decide to re-subscribe. You pay for a full year, but the magazine starts the clock not at present day, but when your initial subscription expired. That would be a pretty slimly tactic. What is different here? Nothing. When your Costco membership lapses you can't buying anything so why should you have to pay for those months?

Amen !!!

This is not a question of ethics.

Was the person denied a refund of their membership fee; offered the opportunity not to renew.

Should you pay only for the days you shop there. Find a store that offers that option and do it.

Did the person cancel their membership or just come back and assume that their membership would be in place.

If you shop there every three months should you be able to shop on the last day of your membership year and avoid paying for the next three months.

Should someone who shops there every day pay the same membership fee as someone who shops there four time a year.

Could the situation have been settled without a 5m dollar lawsuit.

Could you name some other stores with you would rank better in ethics or other than Costco.

Perhaps if you read the entire thread you'll rethink your question.


This is not a question of ethics. -- If you think front loading an expired membership isn't unethical that is your prerogative. I find it heavy handed, and it seems the law is not on Costco's side either.

Was the person denied a refund of their membership fee; offered the opportunity not to renew. -- Irrelevant to the issue. The issue is that Costco's policy is a trap. Most consumers understand when a membership expires it, well, expires. The consumer has the burden of expressly canceling the membership. If Costco is such a consumer friendly store this policy betrays it.

Should you pay only for the days you shop there. Find a store that offers that option and do it. -- Of course not. That IS the issue. A membership is good for 365 days. During the membership year you have the right to shop there any day you like. When your membership expires you do not have the right to shop there. Why should a consumer who does not have the right to shop there have to pay for something he has no rights to?

Did the person cancel their membership or just come back and assume that their membership would be in place. -- Another irrelevant issue. The issue is not Costco's refund policy its their renewal policy, i.e., not at what point a customer can get a refund, but what day his renewal begins.

If you shop there every three months should you be able to shop on the last day of your membership year and avoid paying for the next three months. -- Already answered, but sure. If your membership expires it expires.

Should someone who shops there every day pay the same membership fee as someone who shops there four time a year. -- OK now you are just saying the same thing in a different way.

Could the situation have been settled without a 5m dollar lawsuit. -- Probably. I'm just an outside watcher so can't say for sure. Clearly if Costco wanted this gone they could have changed the policy before even $1000 was spent. Companies invite class action suits with policies like this. They take a gamble and hope they can't make enough $ with the policy before the lawyers rush in. When there is a stinky garbage can, flies rush in. When there is a shady policy, lawyer come.

Could you name some other stores with you would rank better in ethics or other than Costco. -- What does that have to do with anything? Even the most ethical people can go astray and when you are talking about companies let's be clear... a company's goal is not to be ethical its to make money. This renewal policy was designed to fool customers and make Costco money by effectively shortening member's membership period.

bopc1996 said:Chupa said:horizon6 said:Chupa said:horizon6 said:Sorry, this one sounds like it would be a victory basically for some lawyer.

How many have been denied a refund of a request for their membership fee if they were unsatisfied? Should memberships be sold only for the days they someone shops?

There are plenty of companies that display poor business practices. We'd be better off if more companies followed the high standards Costco sets.

To borrow there phrase, Costco is a company with 'a code of ethics that gives members, employees and suppliers priority before shareholders but has resulted in shareholder gains year after year'.

Do you think its ethical to charge people for the months not used b/c they let their membership lapse? Let me put it in simpler terms... if you subscribed to a magazine for a year then let it lapse. The magazines stop coming, of course. Then 6 months later you decide to re-subscribe. You pay for a full year, but the magazine starts the clock not at present day, but when your initial subscription expired. That would be a pretty slimly tactic. What is different here? Nothing. When your Costco membership lapses you can't buying anything so why should you have to pay for those months?

Amen !!!

This is not a question of ethics.

Was the person denied a refund of their membership fee; offered the opportunity not to renew.

Should you pay only for the days you shop there. Find a store that offers that option and do it.

Did the person cancel their membership or just come back and assume that their membership would be in place.

If you shop there every three months should you be able to shop on the last day of your membership year and avoid paying for the next three months.

Should someone who shops there every day pay the same membership fee as someone who shops there four time a year.

Could the situation have been settled without a 5m dollar lawsuit.

Could you name some other stores with you would rank better in ethics or other than Costco.

Perhaps if you read the entire thread you'll rethink your question.


This is not a question of ethics. -- If you think front loading an expired membership isn't unethical that is your prerogative. I find it heavy handed, and it seems the law is not on Costco's side either.

Was the person denied a refund of their membership fee; offered the opportunity not to renew. -- Irrelevant to the issue. The issue is that Costco's policy is a trap. Most consumers understand when a membership expires it, well, expires. The consumer has the burden of expressly canceling the membership. If Costco is such a consumer friendly store this policy betrays it.

Should you pay only for the days you shop there. Find a store that offers that option and do it. -- Of course not. That IS the issue. A membership is good for 365 days. During the membership year you have the right to shop there any day you like. When your membership expires you do not have the right to shop there. Why should a consumer who does not have the right to shop there have to pay for something he has no rights to?

Did the person cancel their membership or just come back and assume that their membership would be in place. -- Another irrelevant issue. The issue is not Costco's refund policy its their renewal policy, i.e., not at what point a customer can get a refund, but what day his renewal begins.

If you shop there every three months should you be able to shop on the last day of your membership year and avoid paying for the next three months. -- Already answered, but sure. If your membership expires it expires.

Should someone who shops there every day pay the same membership fee as someone who shops there four time a year. -- OK now you are just saying the same thing in a different way.

Could the situation have been settled without a 5m dollar lawsuit. -- Probably. I'm just an outside watcher so can't say for sure. Clearly if Costco wanted this gone they could have changed the policy before even $1000 was spent. Companies invite class action suits with policies like this. They take a gamble and hope they can't make enough $ with the policy before the lawyers rush in. When there is a stinky garbage can, flies rush in. When there is a shady policy, lawyer come.

Could you name some other stores with you would rank better in ethics or other than Costco. -- What does that have to do with anything? Even the most ethical people can go astray and when you are talking about companies let's be clear... a company's goal is not to be ethical its to make money. This renewal policy was designed to fool customers and make Costco money by effectively shortening member's membership period.

Sorry, while you do seem to have an answer to almost everything, they're just not good ones.

Many companies have agreements that automatically continue service and continue to bill you for it, some even when you don't get service. Think of mobile phones, an industry where competition exists mostly in name and is lacking significant regulation. Costco publishes its terms of service and membership and if you don't bother to read them you have the option of a refund if your dissatisfied. If you think a company is unethical because the purchaser did not read what they signed and also did not ask for a refund when they were dissatisfied with the renewal your eyes are quite closed to reality of the marketplace. Perhaps as an outside watcher you have limited knowledge of the facts, just noticed the headlines. Wonder if you read the case filings or the settlement. And read this whole thread, you may find that ethics is part of Costco's goals, and as a member and shopper rather than an outside watcher, I've seen this in actual practice. By the way, this was a settlement, not a legal finding. Sometimes being right is too expensive, legal fees are very high. In fact, why don't you figure out how many years of membership fees were consumed by the legal fees of this settlement. Read the settlement as you'll find that the lawyers could not give assurance of prevailing at trial.

Perhaps if you object to the ethics displayed by Costco or their business practices you should shop elsewhere. There are plenty of other choices, although it seems that no one can identify a better one.

Use the courts where necessary. But if you try to squeeze the good businesses, as was done in this case, you may raise prices for all customers or force the good businesses out of business with unnecessary expenses.

thekid72 said:Horizon6, just give it up. Clearly you have a vested interest in Costco, and nothing they do is wrong in your opinion.

You balk at the magazine subscription example, where you put your foot in your mouth.

Now you cite the cell phone industry for small print, etc. When your aniversary date comes up and you stop paying, your cell phone stops working. If you stop using it, then later choose to activate it again, you are not charged for the time it was an inactive phone.

The bottom line is, Costco made a business decision that went against the best interest of the consumer. They also made a business decision to not clearly state this policy to the consumer. They also made a business decision to express they were right instead of considering that they have angered the consumer who pays their wages. If Costco made a simple business decision to examine their previous stand, and agree that the consumer has a valid point - there would be no lawyers getting rich. Lawyers are going to get rich here because Costco is feeding them with the consumers money. There is nobody else to blame for any rising prices or membership fees but Costco's business decisions. They have been taking, now it's time to give back a little. It's simply too bad that someone had to file a class action suit to wake Costco up.

When most mobile phone contract expire your service and your bills continue whether you use the phone or not. The Costco membership was renewed when the person used it again although many members make renewal automatic.
The bottom line is I have a vested interest in business that support employees and their customers and in the end that results in shareholders profit. Costco did not lose the money which the lawyers made for no good reason, we all, except the lawyers, did.

If you feel so strongly that Costco behaved so wrongly, please, shop elsewhere.

And FWs, enjoying your wonderful Godiva bargain, et al, perhaps you'd like to same something in this thread too.

jayK said:thekid72 said:They have been taking, now it's time to give back a little. It's simply too bad that someone had to file a class action suit to wake Costco up.And what would you say if Costco decided to not only change its policy to prorate lapsed renewals on a 1 month basis instead of a 3 month basis, but also start prorating refunds when people cancel their memberships?

that would be fair...

and if they choose to do so, they can...

but when their policies are deceptive...they can and should be sued...unfortunately, class actions aren't good for the consumer...if Costco didn't want to spend that money on legal fees, they should have settled immediately...

the crux of the matter is that Costco was badkdating memberships...in violation of DTPA (IMO)...if you pay for a 365 day membership, then you should GET a 365 day membership...

horizon6 said:pryan67 said:jayK said:thekid72 said:They have been taking, now it's time to give back a little. It's simply too bad that someone had to file a class action suit to wake Costco up.And what would you say if Costco decided to not only change its policy to prorate lapsed renewals on a 1 month basis instead of a 3 month basis, but also start prorating refunds when people cancel their memberships?

 

that would be fair...


and if they choose to do so, they can...


but when their policies are deceptive...they can and should be sued...unfortunately, class actions aren't good for the consumer...if Costco didn't want to spend that money on legal fees, they should have settled immediately...


the crux of the matter is that Costco was badkdating memberships...in violation of DTPA (IMO)...if you pay for a 365 day membership, then you should GET a 365 day membership...

Another lawyer, Pyran67 -- did you read the Ts and Cs of the membershipagreement, did you read the briefs, did you read the settlement agreement, did you even read the DTPA you cited, did the court find a violation of the DPTA, or are you just saying the lawyers must be right because they got the money ??? And where do you think the lawyers' money will come from ?

Deceptive practices abound in our commerce chain. In this case there was an abuse, but it was not by Costco. Please read the documents first, then review your comments.

did YOU read the complaint, responses, court findings? No? then perhaps you should before you spout off about how Costco is in the right here....

yes, I HAVE read several state's DTPA...have you? No? Maybe you should...

Why don't you answer about the magazine subscriptions? If your subscription expires...then 3 months later you "rewnew" it...and you miss out on those 3 months...are you OK with that? It's a simple yes or no question...

I'm NOT in favor of the lawyers making all the money in class action lawsuits...which is why I'd recommend individuals suing...more money to the consumer, less to the lawyers...

pryan67 said:horizon6 said:pryan67 said:jayK said:thekid72 said:They have been taking, now it's time to give back a little. It's simply too bad that someone had to file a class action suit to wake Costco up.And what would you say if Costco decided to not only change its policy to prorate lapsed renewals on a 1 month basis instead of a 3 month basis, but also start prorating refunds when people cancel their memberships?

 

that would be fair...


and if they choose to do so, they can...


but when their policies are deceptive...they can and should be sued...unfortunately, class actions aren't good for the consumer...if Costco didn't want to spend that money on legal fees, they should have settled immediately...


the crux of the matter is that Costco was badkdating memberships...in violation of DTPA (IMO)...if you pay for a 365 day membership, then you should GET a 365 day membership...

Another lawyer, Pyran67 -- did you read the Ts and Cs of the membershipagreement, did you read the briefs, did you read the settlement agreement, did you even read the DTPA you cited, did the court find a violation of the DPTA, or are you just saying the lawyers must be right because they got the money ??? And where do you think the lawyers' money will come from ?

Deceptive practices abound in our commerce chain. In this case there was an abuse, but it was not by Costco. Please read the documents first, then review your comments.

did YOU read the complaint, responses, court findings? No? then perhaps you should before you spout off about how Costco is in the right here....

yes, I HAVE read several state's DTPA...have you? No? Maybe you should...


Why don't you answer about the magazine subscriptions? If your subscription expires...then 3 months later you "rewnew" it...and you miss out on those 3 months...are you OK with that? It's a simple yes or no question...

I'm NOT in favor of the lawyers making all the money in class action lawsuits...which is why I'd recommend individuals suing...more money to the consumer, less to the lawyers...

What do magazine subscriptions have to do with warehouse memberships? A subscription guarantees the subscriber will receive a certain number of items based on the subscription agreement the subscriber enters into with the offering party. A membership simply allows you the right to access a good or service from an offering party based on dues paid and membership terms established and agreed to by both parties at the time you enter the membership agreement. In legal terms they are NOTHING alike. For example you can buy a membership to a gym and never go back but the offering party has still fulfilled their agreement and you have NO rights to a refund. The same applies to a Costco membership since Costco CLEALRY states in their membership terms any subsequent renewals are based on your initial Costco membership month.

cnIsfg said:pryan67 said:horizon6 said:pryan67 said:jayK said:thekid72 said:They have been taking, now it's time to give back a little. It's simply too bad that someone had to file a class action suit to wake Costco up.And what would you say if Costco decided to not only change its policy to prorate lapsed renewals on a 1 month basis instead of a 3 month basis, but also start prorating refunds when people cancel their memberships?

 

that would be fair...


and if they choose to do so, they can...


but when their policies are deceptive...they can and should be sued...unfortunately, class actions aren't good for the consumer...if Costco didn't want to spend that money on legal fees, they should have settled immediately...


the crux of the matter is that Costco was badkdating memberships...in violation of DTPA (IMO)...if you pay for a 365 day membership, then you should GET a 365 day membership...

Another lawyer, Pyran67 -- did you read the Ts and Cs of the membershipagreement, did you read the briefs, did you read the settlement agreement, did you even read the DTPA you cited, did the court find a violation of the DPTA, or are you just saying the lawyers must be right because they got the money ??? And where do you think the lawyers' money will come from ?

Deceptive practices abound in our commerce chain. In this case there was an abuse, but it was not by Costco. Please read the documents first, then review your comments.

did YOU read the complaint, responses, court findings? No? then perhaps you should before you spout off about how Costco is in the right here....

yes, I HAVE read several state's DTPA...have you? No? Maybe you should...


Why don't you answer about the magazine subscriptions? If your subscription expires...then 3 months later you "rewnew" it...and you miss out on those 3 months...are you OK with that? It's a simple yes or no question...

I'm NOT in favor of the lawyers making all the money in class action lawsuits...which is why I'd recommend individuals suing...more money to the consumer, less to the lawyers...

What do magazine subscriptions have to do with warehouse memberships? A subscription guarantees the subscriber will receive a certain number of items based on the subscription agreement the subscriber enters into with the offering party. A membership simply allows you the right to access a good or service from an offering party based on dues paid and membership terms established and agreed to by both parties at the time you enter the membership agreement. In legal terms they are NOTHING alike. For example you can buy a membership to a gym and never go back but the offering party has still fulfilled their agreement and you have NO rights to a refund. The same applies to a Costco membership since Costco CLEALRY states in their membership terms any subsequent renewals are based on your initial Costco membership month.

I figured you wouldn't be able/willing to answer it...

not surprised in the least...

I DO agree that a "membership simply allows you the right to access a good or service"...so...what service do people have access to between when their membership expires and when it's renewed? Perhaps Costco should be allowing people who HAD memberships in...without them paying...right?

pryan67 said:I DO agree that a "membership simply allows you the right to access a good or service"...so...what service do people have access to between when their membership expires and when it's renewed?They have access to no Costco services during this time, because they are not Costco members while their membership is lapsed. When they renew, the terms of the renewal state that membership is prorated on a 3 month basis, I'm not sure why you're having so much difficulty with this.

I can see why they have this policy, as it somewhat compensates for loss of revenue when people cancel their memberships after receiving the benefit of access to Costco. Again, it should have been communicated better though.

jayK said:pryan67 said:What does the term "annual" mean to you?In this context, it means whatever it is defined as in the Costco renewal terms. Do they even use the term "annual" in the renewal terms?

You're the one that seems to have it memorized...why don't you tell us?

pryan67 said:jayK said:pryan67 said:What does the term "annual" mean to you?In this context, it means whatever it is defined as in the Costco renewal terms. Do they even use the term "annual" in the renewal terms?


You're the one that seems to have it memorized...why don't you tell us?The fact that I was asking whether the term "annual" was even used in the renewal terms should be a pretty good clue that I don't have the complete T&C in front of me.

And you're the one who is basing your argument on your interpretation of the word "annual". Nice attempt at ducking the question though.