Retail stores free shipping junk fees class action lawsuit


Free shipping junk fees: Who’s affected?

(Photo Credit: William Potter/Shutterstock)

Did a retail store charge you fees for package protection or carbon offsets? If so, you may be eligible to take part in a class action lawsuit. Fill out the form on this page to verify your eligibility.  

For many online shoppers, the allure of free shipping can be an enticing factor when making purchase decisions. The prospect of no additional costs for delivery frequently prompts consumers to enroll in membership programs or add more items to their cart. However, what is marketed as “free shipping” often includes hidden fees. 

Retail stores commonly offset shipping expenses by raising product prices or tacking on surcharges throughout the checkout process. Over time, these junk fees can accumulate and cost consumers a lot of money.  

Do you qualify?

Were you charged junk fees when you were promised free shipping? You may qualify for compensation. Fill out the form to learn more.

Please fill out the form on this page for more information.

Are retail stores that offer free shipping scamming you?

While some retail stores advertise free shipping, many allegedly find alternative means to recoup those shipping costs. For instance, certain vendors offer subscription services or memberships that include complimentary shipping on most items, but the consumer still has to pay membership fees. Other retailers may artificially inflate product prices and offer free shipping on all orders over a specific amount. 

Another way these companies allegedly recoup shipping costs by charging junk fees, which are often labeled protection plans or carbon offsets.  

Defining protection plans and carbon offsets fees

A protection plan, or shipping protection, shipping insurance or package protection, is a fee that retailers charge to guarantee the safe delivery of an item. Numerous retail stores charging for a protection plan will routinely include the cost during checkout. Often, the $3 to $10 fee goes undetected, as it is automatically applied. 

Carbon offsets represent environmental financing. By purchasing carbon offsets, individuals and organizations are providing financial support for initiatives that decrease levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Are package protection and carbon offset fees junk fees?

For many consumers, package protection plans provide welcome assurance when making online purchases. Such plans aim to offer peace of mind by covering potential costs of lost or damaged items during shipping. However, upon closer examination, these plans may be redundant and an unnecessary hidden expense for shoppers.  

Standard terms of online shopping often assign responsibility for customer satisfaction to the retailer. If improper packaging during fulfillment leads to damage, the retailer typically replaces it at no cost. Additionally, common carriers like USPS and UPS routinely provide baseline insurance coverage for lost shipments.  

Have you paid junk fees to any of these companies?

  • Birdies
  • Bohme
  • Shefit
  • Honey Love 
  • Brumate 
  • Dagne Dover
  • Feels So Good
  • Topicals
  • SuitShop
  • RiseWell
  • TrueClassic
  • State
  • Tuckernuck
  • Slenders
  • Dixxon Flannel
  • Chosen Foods
  • Montce

Given the existing consumer protections under retail policies and shipping standards, a separate package protection plan does not offer any real value to the consumer. 

Carbon offsets are also becoming more common when shopping online. However, a recent study showed that there is little proof of environmental benefits. With little evidence of benefit, customers should not be asked to pay for these investments.    

Both package protection plans and carbon offsets are unnecessary fees that offer consumers very little value and drive up an online order’s overall price. When retail stores automatically add these fees to purchases without notifying the shopper, they qualify as junk fees. 

If an online retailer is advertising free shipping but allegedly charging junk fees, they should be held accountable.   



Source link

Scroll to Top