Illegal discrimination?

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty schemes
at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and Morrisons you need
to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the Co-op and Sainsbury's if
you’re added to a parent or guardian’s account. Meanwhile, at Boots and
Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating against
younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

Is it illegal to discriminate against younger people? I ask because the
law does a lot of it for itself.

But in your example, there is no discrimination against younger people.
*Anyone* who has not got the loyalty card has to pay the normal price,
irrespective of their age. It would apply to a 90-yr-old.

OTOH, if a 14 yr old brought in his dad's card, it would "ping" on the
credit card machine and reduce the amount payable.

Companies surely have the right to offer and enter into contracts on
their own terms - especially contracts wherein they offer financial
advantages to customers? Anyone finding them unacceptable is free to go
to Waitrose (other supermarkets are available).

TTman

2024-10-27 22:30:09 UTC

SNIP

Post by JNugent
But in your example, there is no discrimination against younger people.
*Anyone* who has not got the loyalty card has to pay the normal price,
irrespective of their age. It would apply to a 90-yr-old.

IME the 'normal price is 'elevated' and the clubcard 'discounted' price
is the normal price ( when comparing prices across other supermarkets.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

2024-10-28 13:16:14 UTC

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty
schemes at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and Morrisons
you need to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the Co-op and
Sainsbury's if you’re added to a parent or guardian’s account.
Meanwhile, at Boots and Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating
against younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

The law addresses both direct and indirect discrimination. If the effect
of loyalty card rules is that young people are far more likely to be
discriminated against, then that is indirect discrimination.

So, really, my question comes down to whether there is an exemption that
allows discrimination against those under 18, for example?

Post by JNugent
OTOH, if a 14 yr old brought in his dad's card, it would "ping" on the
credit card machine and reduce the amount payable.

He is likely to get away with it, although it may be against the loyalty
card rules.

Post by JNugent
Companies surely have the right to offer and enter into contracts on
their own terms - especially contracts wherein they offer financial
advantages to customers? Anyone finding them unacceptable is free to go
to Waitrose (other supermarkets are available).

Indeed, black people who were banned from boarding houses were free to
try to find other boarding houses. Are you suggesting it was wrong to
ban such discrimination?

Jon Ribbens

2024-10-28 14:37:00 UTC

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty
schemes at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and Morrisons
you need to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the Co-op and
Sainsbury's if you’re added to a parent or guardian’s account.
Meanwhile, at Boots and Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating
against younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

It's not even indirect. The lack of loyalty card means higher prices,
and the loyalty card rules directly discriminate on the basis of age,
with no immediately obvious justification.

Post by GB
So, really, my question comes down to whether there is an exemption that
allows discrimination against those under 18, for example?

It doesn't seem massively likely. My guess would be that the companies
are doing processing on the data which would be unlawful when it's the
data of younger people, or at least not as profitable. I don't think
either of those would amount to a lawful excuse to discriminate.

Adam Funk

2024-10-28 14:56:24 UTC

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty
schemes at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and Morrisons
you need to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the Co-op and
Sainsbury's if you’re added to a parent or guardian’s account.
Meanwhile, at Boots and Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating
against younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

It's not even indirect. The lack of loyalty card means higher prices,
and the loyalty card rules directly discriminate on the basis of age,
with no immediately obvious justification.

I wonder if they might argue that they can discriminate against minors
because of the limitations on enforcing contracts with them?

Post by GB
So, really, my question comes down to whether there is an exemption that
allows discrimination against those under 18, for example?

I would hope not, but you never know.

FWIW, California law prohibits businesses from price discrimination
(among other things) based on refusal to let them use your personal
data (other than the minimum necessary to execute the transaction).

Jon Ribbens

2024-10-28 15:07:50 UTC

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty
schemes at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and Morrisons
you need to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the Co-op and
Sainsbury's if you’re added to a parent or guardian’s account.
Meanwhile, at Boots and Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating
against younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

It's not even indirect. The lack of loyalty card means higher prices,
and the loyalty card rules directly discriminate on the basis of age,
with no immediately obvious justification.

I wonder if they might argue that they can discriminate against minors
because of the limitations on enforcing contracts with them?

That doesn't sound like a reasonable excuse to deny them a loyalty card
though. A contract that reduces the prices for necessaries (such as you
might purchase from Tesco) is clearly "beneficial" to the minor. It just
means that in a few places Tesco might need to put:

if customer.age >= 18:

before doing stuff with customer data that isn't solely beneficial to
the customer.

Andy Burns

2024-10-29 16:50:49 UTC

Post by Jon Ribbens
before doing stuff with customer data that isn't solely beneficial to
the customer.

With or without a clubcard, their tills already require over25(?) ID for
0% beer, energy drinks, knives etc ...

Jon Ribbens

2024-10-29 17:29:45 UTC

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Jon Ribbens
before doing stuff with customer data that isn't solely beneficial to
the customer.

With or without a clubcard, their tills already require over25(?) ID for
0% beer, energy drinks, knives etc ...

I'm not sure what your point is? That's a completely different situation
under different laws with different things being done in different
places at different times for different reasons with different standards.

Mark Goodge

2024-10-28 16:29:21 UTC

Post by Jon Ribbens
It's not even indirect. The lack of loyalty card means higher prices,
and the loyalty card rules directly discriminate on the basis of age,
with no immediately obvious justification.

I wonder if they might argue that they can discriminate against minors
because of the limitations on enforcing contracts with them?

They might also argue that it doesn't actually matter, because clubcard
usage can be shared. Tesco's Ts&Cs say:

6. The Clubcard is not transferable, cannot be copied and can only be used
by the member who is named and registered on the account. Clubcard key
fobs may be used by anyone who is resident at the same registered
address.

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/zone/clubcard-terms-and-conditions

What that means is that I can't let anyone use my full size clubcard
(presumably because that has my name and account number printed on it, and I
presume they want to avoid any situation where someone might try to use that
as ID to pretend to me be), but I can also order smaller, keyfob sized cards
that don't have anything on them except the barcode which links them to my
account. So I could order a couple of those and let my kids have them. I'll
get the benefit of any points that might be earned from the use of those
cards, but they'll get the benefit of the clubcard pricing.

Mark

Jon Ribbens

2024-10-28 16:44:59 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge

I wonder if they might argue that they can discriminate against minors
because of the limitations on enforcing contracts with them?

This is of no use to anyone who's left home at 16, of course.

JNugent

2024-10-28 16:34:21 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge

I wonder if they might argue that they can discriminate against minors
because of the limitations on enforcing contracts with them?

They might also argue that it doesn't actually matter, because clubcard
6. The Clubcard is not transferable, cannot be copied and can only be used
by the member who is named and registered on the account. Clubcard key
fobs may be used by anyone who is resident at the same registered
address.
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/zone/clubcard-terms-and-conditions
What that means is that I can't let anyone use my full size clubcard
(presumably because that has my name and account number printed on it, and I
presume they want to avoid any situation where someone might try to use that
as ID to pretend to me be), but I can also order smaller, keyfob sized cards
that don't have anything on them except the barcode which links them to my
account. So I could order a couple of those and let my kids have them. I'll
get the benefit of any points that might be earned from the use of those
cards, but they'll get the benefit of the clubcard pricing.

A few weeks ago, I found myself at Morrison's without the card. I
approached the customer service desk and asked if I could be issued a
supplementary card on the account held in my wife's name.

No problem, after giving the necessary information.

A few minutes and I was handed a cardboard version (with a bar-code) and
a promise that a plastic card would be issued by post.

Theo

2024-11-02 13:24:41 UTC

Post by Adam Funk
FWIW, California law prohibits businesses from price discrimination
(among other things) based on refusal to let them use your personal
data (other than the minimum necessary to execute the transaction).

That's interesting, because the first time I saw this scam it was in
California (at either Safeway or Ralph's, possibly both). An item was $3.99
but $1.99 if you had their card. As a visitor I was ripped off and had to
pay the $3.99.

Of course, it's possible they aren't actually using the personal data from
that transaction, ie it's just to lock in customers with their card (to
discourage cross-shopping at other stores).

Theo

JNugent

2024-11-02 15:04:32 UTC

Post by Theo

That's interesting, because the first time I saw this scam it was in
California (at either Safeway or Ralph's, possibly both). An item was $3.99
but $1.99 if you had their card. As a visitor I was ripped off and had to
pay the $3.99.
Of course, it's possible they aren't actually using the personal data from
that transaction, ie it's just to lock in customers with their card (to
discourage cross-shopping at other stores).

It's a variant of the loss-leader.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Adam Funk

2024-11-04 11:24:11 UTC

Post by Theo

That's interesting, because the first time I saw this scam it was in
California (at either Safeway or Ralph's, possibly both). An item was $3.99
but $1.99 if you had their card. As a visitor I was ripped off and had to
pay the $3.99.
Of course, it's possible they aren't actually using the personal data from
that transaction, ie it's just to lock in customers with their card (to
discourage cross-shopping at other stores).

AFAICT, the law I'm talking about first came into effect in 2020.

Theo

2024-11-04 17:17:46 UTC

Post by Theo

That's interesting, because the first time I saw this scam it was in
California (at either Safeway or Ralph's, possibly both). An item was $3.99
but $1.99 if you had their card. As a visitor I was ripped off and had to
pay the $3.99.
Of course, it's possible they aren't actually using the personal data from
that transaction, ie it's just to lock in customers with their card (to
discourage cross-shopping at other stores).

AFAICT, the law I'm talking about first came into effect in 2020.

Ah, I saw it in 2019. Maybe they brought in the law as a result of these
games.

Theo

Adam Funk

2024-11-05 09:39:09 UTC

That's interesting, because the first time I saw this scam it was in
California (at either Safeway or Ralph's, possibly both). An item was $3.99
but $1.99 if you had their card. As a visitor I was ripped off and had to
pay the $3.99.
Of course, it's possible they aren't actually using the personal data from
that transaction, ie it's just to lock in customers with their card (to
discourage cross-shopping at other stores).

AFAICT, the law I'm talking about first came into effect in 2020.

Ah, I saw it in 2019. Maybe they brought in the law as a result of these
games.

Probably!

JNugent

2024-10-29 19:47:05 UTC

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty
schemes at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and Morrisons
you need to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the Co-op and
Sainsbury's if you’re added to a parent or guardian’s account.
Meanwhile, at Boots and Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating
against younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

It's not even indirect. The lack of loyalty card means higher prices,
and the loyalty card rules directly discriminate on the basis of age,
with no immediately obvious justification.

But is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of age where the age
group is children?

I ask because there are obvious circumstances where children are charged
less than adults, yet they never complain about that.

OTOH, it is easy to see that discrimination against, say, a 90 year old
is a different matter.

Post by GB
So, really, my question comes down to whether there is an exemption that
allows discrimination against those under 18, for example?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

2024-10-30 08:57:29 UTC

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty
schemes at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and Morrisons
you need to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the Co-op and
Sainsbury's if you’re added to a parent or guardian’s account.
Meanwhile, at Boots and Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating
against younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

It's not even indirect. The lack of loyalty card means higher prices,
and the loyalty card rules directly discriminate on the basis of age,
with no immediately obvious justification.

But is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of age where the age
group is children?

That was, indeed, the question I asked. Nobody here seems to know.

Post by JNugent
I ask because there are obvious circumstances where children are charged
less than adults, yet they never complain about that.

What you mean is that adults get charged more than children, yet the
adults don't complain.

Post by JNugent
OTOH, it is easy to see that discrimination against, say, a 90 year old
is a different matter.

Our local cinema offers OAP rates. Nobody has hauled them over the coals
for it.

Post by GB
So, really, my question comes down to whether there is an exemption that
allows discrimination against those under 18, for example?

JNugent

2024-11-01 01:31:24 UTC

Post by GB
Which points out that there are age restrictions on getting store
"Our research found that you must be 18 or over to join loyalty
schemes at Lidl, Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose; at Co-op and
Morrisons you need to be 16. You can sign up even younger at the
Co-op and Sainsbury's if you’re added to a parent or guardian’s.
account. Meanwhile, at Boots and Superdrug you only need to be 13."
A number of stores, such as Tesco, have lower prices for loyalty card
holders. Does this mean that they are indirectly discriminating
against younger people, by charging them higher prices, and is that
discrimination illegal?

It's not even indirect. The lack of loyalty card means higher prices,
and the loyalty card rules directly discriminate on the basis of age,
with no immediately obvious justification.

But is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of age where the age
group is children?

That was, indeed, the question I asked. Nobody here seems to know.

It isn't and cannot be. If it were, children would be allowed inside
pubs and betting shops.

Post by JNugent
I ask because there are obvious circumstances where children are
charged less than adults, yet they never complain about that.

What you mean is that adults get charged more than children, yet the
adults don't complain.

That as well. But one might well expect anti-discrimination champions to
be úber-conscious of discrimination all round.

Post by JNugent
OTOH, it is easy to see that discrimination against, say, a 90 year
old is a different matter.

Our local cinema offers OAP rates. Nobody has hauled them over the coals
for it.

Let a nonogenarian seek motor insurance.

That'll soon learn 'im.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

2024-11-01 11:01:28 UTC

Post by GB
Our local cinema offers OAP rates. Nobody has hauled them over the
coals for it.

Let a nonogenarian seek motor insurance.
That'll soon learn 'im.

The Equality Act includes an exemption which allows insurers to base
premiums on age and disability (but not sex, any longer). Without that
exemption, it would be illegal discrimination!

The EHCR confirms that there is a similar exemption for wrinkly tickets
at the flicks.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/age-discrimination

Roland Perry

2024-10-29 13:11:17 UTC