- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Have you ever wondered if you were being overcharged for an item you’re buying in a retail or grocery store?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #280 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
The retail grocer, Dollar General, has been accused of business fraud.
But first, this: there are two different issues that often get mixed together in discussions of Dollar General: ordinary price changes and retail mistakes, versus knowingly charging more than the price displayed to the customer. The latter is where regulators and lawsuits have used consumer-protection/fraud terminology.
The basic allegation is straightforward: a shelf tag or in-store sign shows one price, but the scanner/register charges a higher price. Shoppers frequently find that everyday items cost more at checkout than the price listed on the shelf tag. These discrepancies often affect rural and low-income areas where options for alternative grocery stores are limited. There is substantial documented history behind the allegations:
2023, the state of New Jersey settled with Dollar General for $1.2 million after alleging that merchandise repeatedly scanned at higher prices than those posted on the shelves. The state characterized the conduct as violations of its Consumer Fraud Act and Weights and Measures Act.
Missouri: 2023, a state investigation cited discrepancies as large as $6.50 per item, with an average alleged overcharge of $2.71. Ohio: Dollar General also settled allegations brought by the Ohio attorney general concerning pricing practices, agreeing to measures intended to improve price accuracy.
In 2025, Colorado state leaders have cracked down on the retailer, including a $400K settlement with Dollar General for overcharging customers.
2025, the Pennsylvania attorney general announced a $1.55 million settlement. “Our investigation found widespread and repeated instances of Pennsylvanians being overcharged at checkout—blatant deception of customers all over the Commonwealth,” Attorney General said. The state's investigation found that Dollar General failed more than 40% of pricing-accuracy inspections from 2019–2023, and the settlement required additional staffing, training, audits and correction of known inaccuracies. The agreement itself says that a settlement is not an admission of a legal violation.
Nationwide, a class-action case alleged that customers were routinely charged more at checkout than the advertised shelf price. Dollar General ultimately agreed to a settlement, while denying wrongdoing.
So, this isn't simply a story based on customers noticing an occasional mismatched tag. Government inspections have repeatedly documented mismatches, and the company has entered multiple settlements concerning them.
But is that actually “changing prices”? This distinction matters. Suppose Dollar General changes the price of a bottle of detergent from $3 to $3.50. That's generally ordinary retail pricing. A company is ordinarily free to change its prices, subject to applicable laws and representations it makes to consumers. The controversial situation is more like shelf: $3.00, register: $3.50. If the shelf hasn't been updated, the company can characterize this as a pricing-system or operational error. That's materially different from deliberately putting “$3” on the shelf while intentionally programming the register to charge $3.50.
Some former employees cited in litigation have attributed the mismatches to frequent price changes combined with inadequate staffing to replace shelf tags. One amended complaint quotes former employees describing weekly price changes and employees struggling to keep shelf labels current. Those are allegations in litigation, rather than independent findings that every discrepancy was intentional.
The Pennsylvania settlement is illustrative: the remedy specifically required Dollar General to maintain enough staffing to update shelf tags weekly and to correct known inaccuracies within 24 hours.
Where does “business fraud” enter the picture? This is where commentators and regulators can use somewhat different language. There are at least three possible interpretations: Normal business practice: Prices change frequently. The company's computer system gets updated before every physical shelf label gets changed. That's an operational explanation. It doesn't necessarily imply fraudulent intent.
Negligent or systematically poor business practice: if a retailer knows its stores routinely have stale shelf labels and doesn't devote enough resources to fixing them, critics can argue that the company is benefiting from a predictable operational failure even without proving that employees deliberately overcharge customers.
Deceptive/fraudulent conduct: if a company knowingly represents one price to induce a purchase and then deliberately charges another, that moves into a very different legal and ethical category. Consumer-protection laws can prohibit misleading pricing even when prosecutors cannot establish criminal fraud. The important point is that “illegal deceptive pricing,” and “criminal fraud” aren't synonymous. A state attorney general can bring a consumer-protection action or obtain a civil settlement without proving that executives had a criminal scheme to defraud customers. For example, Pennsylvania's attorney general described the conduct as “deception,” while the settlement itself explicitly says it isn't an admission of violation.
The business commentary re Dollar General tends to split around the intent question. Critics, including consumer advocates and reporting, have argued that the repeated nature of the discrepancies matters. Their argument isn't simply “one cashier made a mistake”; it is that recurring mismatches across many stores can transfer money from customers to the retailer, particularly affecting people who don't have the time or ability to scrutinize every receipt.
The opposing/less accusatory interpretation is essentially: Dollar General operates thousands of relatively small stores, changes prices frequently, and has historically had staffing constraints; maintaining perfectly synchronized shelf labels and registers is difficult. Dollar General has maintained that accurate pricing is its objective, while settlements have required it to improve the processes for achieving it.
That's why the most defensible distinction is: changing a price is normal business. Advertising one price and systematically charging another is potentially deceptive. Whether a particular discrepancy represents an innocent operational failure, negligence, or intentional deception depends on evidence about knowledge, controls, frequency, and what the company did after discovering the problem.
And there's an interesting broader business-ethics question underneath it: even if a company can technically attribute overcharges to understaffing or outdated tags, at what point does knowingly maintaining a system that predictably produces those overcharges cease being merely “bad operations” and become consumer deception? The repeated government settlements are evidence that regulators have treated the problem as more serious than ordinary isolated checkout mistakes, but they don't by themselves establish that every overcharge was intentional fraud.
Repeatedly charging customers more at checkout than the price displayed on the shelf raises serious business-ethics concerns because it violates the basic principle that a transaction should be transparent and honest. In New Jersey, inspections of 58 Dollar General stores found more than 2,000 instances in which products scanned for more than their posted prices. In Pennsylvania, an investigation found Dollar General stores failed more than 40% of pricing-accuracy inspections from 2019–2023, leading to requirements for greater staffing, audits, training, and prompt correction of inaccurate prices.
From an ethical standpoint, repeatedly allowing customers to be charged more than advertised undermines informed consent and trust. Whether individual discrepancies resulted from negligence or intentional conduct is a separate question, and the settlements do not establish criminal fraud. However, regulators have treated the repeated conduct as deceptive pricing and consumer-protection violations, making it reasonable to describe the practice as fraudulent or deceptive business conduct in an ethical sense, while recognizing that “criminal fraud” requires a specific legal showing of intent.
“Dollar General is stealing from its customers. It’s a major scam that’s siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from the poorest people in America,” so said one investigator.
You can protect yourself by always looking over your receipt before leaving the store. Or, snapping a picture of the shelf price if you suspect an item is mislabeled. And by notifying the cashier immediately for a price correction or filing a consumer complaint with your state's attorney general office or local weights and measures department.
Caveat emptor is an old Latin phrase meaning "let the buyer beware," placing responsibility on the consumer to inspect the quality and pricing of an item purchased. For the distinction between making money legitimately versus profiting through deceptive pricing, Dollar General needs to learn another old Latin phrase, Veritas ante lucrum, “Truth before profit.”
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.
If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, has been around for decades, but a new, aggressive Corporate Social Activism took a big leap in year 2020.
“Through pronouncements, policies, boycotts, sponsorships, lobbying, and fundraising, corporations are actively engaged in issues like immigration reform, gun regulation, racial justice, gender equality, and religious freedom. This is the new reality of business and social activism in America.”
Such corporate social activism is no longer about ethics but ideology. “In a highly polarized and fragmented society such as the one we live in, taking a political stand and engaging in social activism means supporting one ideology and one party over another. We can certainly see how this could become a breeding ground for controversy and contention not seen through traditional corporate social responsibility measures.”
Here are a few examples:
-Nike’s collaboration with Colin Kaepernick.
-Starbucks embrace of LGBTQ+ causes, including informing stockholders that if they didn’t like it, they could leave.
-Chick-fil-A’s stance, based on religious views, against LGBTQ+ causes and later reset indicating the company welcomed and would serve any customer.
-Innumerable companies, including professional sports, Amazon, Facebook, promoting Black Lives Matter the organization and other “social justice” causes.
-Big Tech banning Donald Trump permanently from their communication apps.
-Dick’s Sporting Goods deciding not to sell guns.
-Big box discount stores, including Walmart, deciding not to sell ammunition that can be used in semi-automatic rifles and handguns, then Walmart returning guns and ammo to their stores.
-Corporations increasingly making “anti-racism” policies a required part of their employee training.
This list does not include companies that have rushed to establish COVID-19 protocols.
Some backlash to corporate social activism is possible: Assistant Professor of Management Mary-Hunter McDonnell, says, “We’ve seen a 75 percent increase since 2000 in the number of social movements targeting firms.” “Firms are increasingly more vulnerable to activism, McDonnell noted, thanks partly to the rise of socially conscious consumerism. Millennials, who are more inclined than their elders to link their purchases with social causes, look for products that meet their needs and express their political values as well. Also on the rise are socially conscious investment firms—up from 55 in 1995 to 260 in 2007.”
“This new corporate social activism is fostered in part by three larger, interconnected factors in business, law, and society:
(1) the convergence of government and private enterprise,
(2) the maturation of corporate social responsibility efforts, and
(3) the expansion of corporate political rights.
First, the public responsibilities of government and the private endeavors of business have blurred as government and business frequently act in interchangeable ways. Given this public-private convergence, activists seeking social change will pursue not only traditional public channels of government but also the new private channels of corporations to achieve their goals. Moreover, contemporary political gridlock and obstructionist partisanship have made new corporate channels of social change more appealing relative to the traditional public channels of government. Second, the maturation of corporate social responsibility efforts is another key contributing factor in the rise of contemporary corporate social activism. As businesses profess and position themselves to be socially conscious, social activists will more readily try to leverage the tools and resources of businesses towards achieving their aims. Third, the expansion of corporate political rights has played a significant role in fostering contemporary corporate social activism. Following the landmark cases of Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., business interests are playing an ever-growing role in politics, policymaking, and social activism. Consequently, social activists have made greater efforts to leverage the expanding political means and influence of corporations to serve their ends. Collectively, these three factors have created fertile conditions for corporations and social activists to engage one another on some of the large, pressing issues confronting contemporary society, leading to a new form of corporate social activism.”
“While one can be reasonably and cautiously optimistic about the long-term outlook of corporate social activism, one should also recognize the very real, potentially corrosive effects that such activism can have on our politics, our markets, and our society.”
It's a free country, or at least it is so far. So corporate social activism would seem to be part and parcel to individuals in these companies making decisions to pursue social causes and also assuming the risk that consumers may take their business elsewhere. This is true, for example, with Starbucks. If you don’t like their politics, there are countless other coffee cafes available to you.
The problem, though, arises when companies hold a monopoly or nearly so, like Big Tech. If Facebook, Google, Twitter and the subsidiaries they own like YouTube or Instagram or WhatsApp decide to put the kabosh on conservative or Christian or any other viewpoints, what alternative online communications platforms are available to them?
If professional sports athletes want to engage in social justice issues re their views on racism, which most recently has been BLM, more power to them. When teams and game telecasts make BLM messages central to their offerings, fans are left with putting up with the propaganda or turning it off. (I’m not talking about being in favor of racism or in any way justifying it – I’m talking about being opposed to BLM’s values and methods that are antithetical to Christian and I’d say American ideals.) There’s nowhere else to go. This is the sad politicization of professional sports.
Again, I have no problem with businesspeople or professionals including athletes promoting their political views. I do have a problem with them making these views a condition for engaging or acquiring their goods and services, meaning forcing their views on consumers.
Corporate social activism today is taking on the methods and characteristics of woke and cancel culture, i.e., we are right, you are wrong, and you should be silenced. This is a smug authoritarianism, and it is a dangerous precedent and bodes ill for the future of a free society.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2021
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Why can international airline businesses build multi-million dollar jets capable of flying 450 people safely to the other side of the world but cannot install in Inter-Com that works?
In the last few hours on two huge jets, Delta and Cyprus Air, I never understood a word the pilot said over the com line and I missed much of what the flight attendants said on one of the jets. I also experienced this the past three weekends on trips to KS, PA, and OR. What gives?
If safety is a factor in what the pilot or flight attendant is saying, than we are not safe because we can’t hear at all, the sound is muffled, or it squawks. If customer service is the issue than we aren’t well served because we weren’t able to learn anything.
I mean, really, I’m not making this up. I experience this regularly. Sometimes it is so bad you hear nothing more than a whisper of static. Don’t maintenance people check com lines? Don’t flight attendants report they can’t hear and, if so, presumably the guy in 27B can’t hear either?
And if your company made and installed these communications devices wouldn’t you want to make them top of the line?
Well, what can I say other than to lodge a viewpoint? It would be laughable it if weren’t more important than an annoyance.
My recommendation? Fix the communications systems before “We have a problem, Houston” becomes more than a cliché.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012 *This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Apple, Inc. products aren’t perfect. But compared to other technology I’ve used, they’re close.
I have a MacBook and an iPhone that belong to SAT-7, the organization with which I serve. I’ve used them for more than two years and I’m a confirmed believer.
As of today, I acquired by way of a birthday/Christmas present an iPad 1. The Mac, iPhone, and iPad are cool tools, let me tell you: easy to use, reliable, incredible color clarity, sleek and attractive, cutting edge—what’s not to like? And the iCloud? Also a neat nuance making life easier.
And Apple Store employees? Efficient and effective in my experiences, whenever I’ve had questions or a problem. The company stands by its products and the staffs’ attitude is “How can I help you?”
The blue T-shirt kids out front and the techies at the Genius Bar and in the back have come through for me time and again. I have not experienced this kind of customer service with most other companies—not just technology but you name it, airlines, hotels, restaurants, car rental companies. Some have been responsive, but no one has come through as consistently as Apple.
One of the reasons for this is that the blue-t-shirt crowd actually believes in the product. They “own” them and the company. They’re pleased, even excited, and maybe proud to be part of the Apple story, part of the hip but practical, even if at times demanding, company culture.
I was a long-time user of other computer products until a board member convinced my organization to make the switch. He was right: the Apple stuff works and works well. We don’t want to go back.
I said Apple isn’t perfect. I don’t appreciate its sometimes monopolistic, big-guy influence on the industry, i.e. Apples way or no way. I don’t appreciate Apple’s goofy resistance to Adobe Flash. I don't understand who designed Apple's "Finder" file management system, which sometimes makes no intuitive sense. But hey, with the wheat comes a little chaff.
Steve Jobs is gone, but hopefully Apple will continue its innovative ways. Only time will tell.
I wish other companies would take notes, at least in terms of customer service if not product excellence. For now, I'm happy to be an Apple fan.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Benetton has done it again. The Italian clothing company whose American empire has dropped from 800 to 61 stores is once again making a marketing move that advertises more about edgy sexuality than clothing.
The so-called Unhate campaign features public domain pictures of world leaders kissing one another. President Barack Obama is featured kissing China’s Hu Jintao. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is portrayed kissing Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbbas, and Pope Benedict is kissing Imam of the Al-Ashar mosque Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb. So far, only the Pope-Imam smooch has been dropped after loud protests from the Vatican.
To say the same-sex pictures of the campaign are disgusting, or at least tasteless, doesn’t quite cover it. What’s more disgusting is the Benetton executive debuty chairman’s, the son of the founder, claim the advertising campaign is not about Benetton’s brand but about the “need to have courage to not hate others.” Sure, the company is spending millions to promote love and peace. That’s Benetton balderdash.
Benetton is known for pushing the envelope in advertising, featuring the bloody clothes of a soldier killed in battle, black children kissing wrapped in the American and Soviet flags, or convicted murders each given a chance to share their view of life. Benetton is not alone. Remember Calvin Klein’s “heroin chic” ads in the 1990s? These pictures featured emaciated people, usually young women, with dark circles under their eyes. The ads drew fire even from the White House. And then there’s Abercrombie and Fitch, which generally features partially nude models, often in compromising positions, in its advertisements. Abercrombie and Fitch has also sold push-up or padded bra bathing suits for little girls under 10 years of age.
Supposedly the owners and leadership in these companies hold rather liberal social and political views. Ostensibly these advertisements are about clothing or fashions, yet few of the actual pictures or messages feature clothing. Ostensibly, at least for Benetton, these ads are about a political message, clearly a nihilistic one. But in the end, the ads are really about creating controversy to advance the brand. The companies want their name to be known so that, what, they can make more money, a decidedly capitalistic viewpoint.
Benetton claims no moral responsibility for its ads. Indeed in using political leaders’ names and images for commercial purposes without permission or compensation the companies are probably breaking the law. But Benetton does not care. Certainly Benetton and the other companies are responsible for promoting debased sexuality, the drug culture, and maybe even pedophilia, but no matter, the brand and cash flow are what matter.
One hopes that the American public would not be so gullible. One hopes Americans, and for that matter consumers in other countries, would walk away from Benetton, Calvin Klein, and Abercrombie and Fitch. One hopes.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Friday evening we came home late and discovered an UPS package delivery sticker on our door. I followed instructions and logged on the UPS website at 9:15 pm, intending to place a Hold and Will Call on my package so I could pick it up the next morning, Saturday.
I soon discovered that the site would not let me pick up the next morning because I had not logged on to the UPS Customer Service Center website by 7:00 pm. This meant I couldn’t get my package until Monday. But I was scheduled to fly out to the Middle East Saturday afternoon and wanted to take that package, a laptop for a SAT-7 international staff member.
So the next morning early I called the local UPS Customer Service Center and on the third try, got a human being. She eagerly tracked my package, came back to the phone, and happily announced, “Yes, it’s here.” So I asked if I could come to retrieve it and she told me I had not logged on by 7:00 pm the night before, so she could not give me the package. I told her I’d logged on, only to learn of the deadline. I told her that I was leaving for the Middle East that afternoon. I told her I’d gladly pick it up. No go. I didn’t get my package though it was right there within her reach.
This is “bureaucracy” in all of its negative manifestations. This is a company that's focused more on the means than the ends, something called “ends/means inversion,” wherein UPS forced policies upon customers and personnel with no discretion, policies more about the system than the purpose—to help me get a package.
I know companies, especially large ones, must have systems and cannot make exceptions for everyone who wants one. But come on. Remember, “Yes, it’s here.” But so what? It didn’t do me any good and the bureaucracy prevailed. This is poor customer service happened in a big-box-company but would not generally have happened in the typical Mom n Pop.
The same morning I made a run to the Apple store at the mall. I did not have an appointment, but I had been invoiced by email for software that had not downloaded. I also had a few questions.
As usual, when I walked into the store it was packed with customers and at least 20 techs in blue Apple t-shirts. I found the floor general and shared my problem. He hailed another tech who listened, asked to see the receipt on my iPhone and then said, “Do you have your laptop with you?” I did. He checked the diagnostics, discovered I already had one kind of software I thought I needed to purchase and showed it to me, then directed me to “Sit right here and download your other software on the store’s fast internet.”
Then, he made sure my download was working. After that, he stuck out his hand for a handshake and said, “Glad to help you. Come back and see us.” Needless to say the contrast with UPS could not have been greater.
This is not my first positive experience with Apple. In fact, every time I’ve gone to the store I’ve walked out pleased, even when I had to wait. They care about your problem or your interest, love their products and what they do, and are trained to treat the customer, including non-techies, with respect.
I’ll go back to Apple, and I’ll avoid UPS.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him a www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.