HelloFresh made the list due to making it hard for customers to unsubscribe. Photo / RNZ, Dan Satherley
Among its “winners” were Pams plasters, which did not stick for as long as they needed to.
“Alongside Pams, we trialled two basic plastic plasters from Elastoplast and Band-Aid.
“Each volunteer chose a place on their body, like their arm or leg, and stuck all three plasters there. Pams plasters just couldn’t hold on,” Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy said.
Foodstuffs has been approached for comment.
HelloFresh
HelloFresh was also given an anti-award for how hard it made it for customers to unsubscribe from the meal kit service.
“The fact that it took four separate confirmations of cancellation before the cancellation was actioned didn’t help – it’s a bit like being stuck in an escape room,” Duffy said.
He said research respondents said it felt like HelloFresh did everything it could to stop them cancelling and one person compared it to a bad relationship break-up.
“Signing up to the service is so easy. But cancelling is significantly harder, which makes HelloFresh’s online design all the more frustrating.”
HelloFresh did not respond to RNZ queries.
It told Consumer NZ that it had a new pause and cancellation process but Duffy said it was not an improvement.
He said it should be as easy to unsubscribe as it was to subscribe in the first place.
“Fair play, if I’m looking to unsubscribe from your service, maybe offer me a special deal to retain me… that’s potentially good business, but the layers upon layers of hurdles and web design that is designed to lead you away from actually what you want to do is quite something to behold with HelloFresh.”
He said there was no law that stopped a business putting someone in a “20-minute downward spiral” of trying to interact with it to unsubscribe.
“We’re arguing there needs to be an amendment to the Fair Trading Act to cover what are called dark patterns. So that’s manipulative web design that’s designed to do what you don’t want it to do, to do something that’s in the interest of the business to your detriment as a consumer.
“Other jurisdictions are beginning to introduce what are called prohibitions on unfair trading practices, which cover this.
“But at the moment our Fair Trading Act has a big gap in it where a business isn’t misleading you by making it difficult for you to unsubscribe. They’re not saying you can’t unsubscribe, they’re just making it virtually impossible for you to technically do it. Which is legally compliant at the moment, but we don’t think it should be.”
Harvey Norman
Consumer NZ also raised concerns about Harvey Norman’s pricing.
Consumer tracked 10 products online over a nine-week period and found that Harvey Norman promised a “great price”, “super deal”, “huge deal” or a “massive stock sellout” every week on most of the 10.
“If a business constantly sells a product at a special price, that ‘special’ becomes the usual selling price. A sale must be a genuine opportunity to save, for a limited time,” Duffy said.
“When something says it’s on sale – you need to be able to trust it really is. Harvey Norman makes that surprisingly difficult to do.”
He said when Consumer asked a Harvey Norman spokesperson about its pricing practices, the spokesperson said the company’s practices were consistent with the “industry approach to pricing and labelling decisions”.
“If that’s the case, we’re giving the ‘industry approach’ a ‘yeah, nah’, too,” Duffy said.
Barkers
Barkers was highlighted for its potentially misleading terms and conditions.
Duffy said Consumer reviewed 30 online returns policies and found Barkers had potentially broken the rules by implying some items could not be returned.
“Our spot check found that Barkers’ online returns policy wasn’t up to scratch. You have the right to return any product that doesn’t meet the guarantees under the Consumer Guarantees Act. It’s that simple.
“A returns policy can’t overrule the law, and we think Barkers risked misleading their customers by setting out a range of limitations that are at odds with the customer’s rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act.
“Our interaction with Barkers has been really good and they’ve certainly taken on board our feedback and are looking to urgently review their policies. So that’s a really beneficial side of us doing this process.”
Other shops had similar issues but not to the same extent, he said.
“They’re obviously concerned that people are buying clothes, perhaps wearing them out to a party and then trying to get a refund for them by claiming that they’re faulty. But actually you’re not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act if you do that.
“If clothes don’t genuinely have a fault and you just change your mind, you’re not entitled to a refund or a replacement.
“So Barkers don’t need to sail close to the wind with the wording in their policies that say things like there’s a 30-day limit for returning clothes. There is no limit in the law for returning an item if it’s not fit for purpose or it’s broken, or has a fundamental fault with it, you have rights.”
He said another issue that was seen was shops trying to ask people to pay to return items.
“The Consumer Guarantees Act says that it’s the retailer’s responsibility to manage returns.”
He said New Zealand consumers lacked an understanding of their rights and there was a lack of enforcement from regulations.
“I can remember in my 20s, there were quite active campaigns out of what used to be the Ministry of Consumer Affairs publishing set texts around refunds that stores would have on their counters.
“And we don’t see that level of activity anymore… consumer issues generally across government have been sidelined, I think, and particularly under the current government, they’re not a high priority.
“So the funding’s not there to do mass market campaigns and educate consumers.
“Secondly, we’re often dealing with multinationals here where they will write terms and conditions for their bigger markets and New Zealand just becomes a tack-on.
“There might be a lawyer sitting in Los Angeles trying to write a returns policy that complies with New Zealand law, and they might not get everything right because they’re not specialists in the jurisdiction.”