Best Buy Co. Inc., the Richfield-based retail giant, recently ran afoul of two state attorneys general over rebate issues. In May 2004, without admitting wrongdoing, the company settled with New Jersey’s attorney general for $133,000 over claims that it failed to honor rebates.

In August, Ohio’s attorney general sued Best Buy, accusing the company of failing to make good on promised rebates. A Best Buy spokeswoman said she couldn’t comment on the suit.

Household Watch is watching this closely, as Best Buy capitalized on Household – HSBC’s (Retail Services) failure to credit payments on time. Reports state that HSBC put entire trays of mail containing payments back into the mail system, causing the payments to appear as late.

With rebate issues and late payment issues harming the consumer, electronic retailer Best Buy and banking giant HSBC are again under scrutiny of Household Watch, Attorney’s General and others.

The economics and legal question of the week focuses on whether Best Buy should be required to restate earmings for a period of almost 10 years during which HSBC and Household Retail Services duped consumers with late payments (Shea vs Household) , if said duplicity resulted in higher earnings for Best Buy in the form of on-going compensation.

Household International was directly responsible for Shea vs Household for the first 8 to 9 years, but was owned by HSBC – HSBC North America Holdings when they were caught with their finger in the pie. Some Americans felt like Household and HSBC had their finger elsewhere, as late fees and overlimit fees accrued and FICO scores went down, resulting in poor credit for those who did nothing wrong.

Popularity: 8% [?]

No related posts.