It's most likely both, but if laws forbid Udemy from showing the price as a discount if it doesn't fit certain criteria, then Udemy should not allow creators to set that "discount" at all.
The discounts vary randomly, and the publically advertised discount prices often disappear the moment you log in. (They would say these are for new customers only.) This incentivizes creating an account per course under different email variants.)
Much like there is a good strategy for eBay auctions (snipe them in the last 5 seconds), the good strategy for Udemy is to star all courses that look interesting and then later buy them when they inevitably have deep discounts.
> All persons who resident in the United States and purchased a course or courses from Defendant at a discount based on Reference Price Promotion during the period of August 23, 2017 through and including the Date of Settlement.
Does it mean anyone can jump in and demand a slice of the pie? What's more important, how will it impact the future? Will Udemy have to stop the fake sales to avoid future lawsuits? $4m seems small considering their revenue.
> Does it mean anyone can jump in and demand a slice of the pie?
(Not a lawyer etc) As long as someone purchased a course at the discount price during the period specified (and meets the other criteria), yes - they qualify to get a portion of the $4M.
> how will it impact the future? Will Udemy have to stop the fake sales to avoid future lawsuits? $4m seems small considering their revenue.
The amount is likely based to some degree on the revenue generated by this tactic, so it should in a sense “undo” however they’ve profited from this tactic. If it’s more profitable to keep doing it, I expect there will be another suit similar to this one, and “they were fined and kept doing it” will be a potent argument for massively increasing the amount of the fine as a punitive measure.
Not sure I understand. Udemy being fined for deceptive advertising won’t have any impact on whether other companies decide to break other laws. Regulatory capture is an entirely unrelated thing, that’s when law-makers are influenced to make laws that serve the interests of the entities they’re supposed to be regulating. Companies breaking laws and courts punishing law-breakers are not involved in the law-making process.
I paid $9.99 for an android course, I doubt it's worth trying to claim on this unless they are going to refund the whole thing. Getting $0.50 back while some law firm gets $1, isn't a meaningful use of my time.
Udemy's abuse of dark patterns is the most blatant I've ever seen. They make airlines and travel agencies look honest. It's a shame because they are loaded with good, cheap courses.
I don't understand this at all unless it was some kind of legal technicality they got them on. I have 100 courses and not many of them were free, but I never felt misled, and I never payed over 13 bucks. If a course wasn't "on sale" I'd wait a week or more and the urgency marketing would kick in and I'd close the deal. Nothing was fake, it was just stupid and annoying.
There's a Vue.js course on Udemy that a colleage suggested to me. The price when I'm not logged in to Udemy is ~$20. When I login it jumps up to close to $200. This was 2 to 4 weeks ago.
I asked them about this on Twitter but got no reply. I went back to the Udemy site and struggled to find a contact form or similar.
Shady. Very shady.
I frequent Slickdeals.net as well, and have seen similar complaints about other e-comm sites. Shockingly, Amazon has been mentioned.
But when you logged in, it was very obvious that it was $200?
Its annoying, and dark, but its not so much a bait an switch. They are probably offering that $20 price to new users, so if you signed up for the first time it would stay at $20 as you logged into a new account. They just don't make it very clear. I never found it misleading because I never believed the prices until I logged in.
Basically, a retailer must prove they've actually sold a product at it's base price to a substantial amount of customers, to prove that the reduced/sale price is actually a sale price and not its base price. This prevents customers from believing they're getting a better deal than they are.
> The FTC rule says a former price needs to be “the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.
Go to website > see 80% off > sign in to buy > no longer 80% off
> Go to website > see 80% off > sign in to buy > no longer 80% off
That's a bait and switch, also illegal. This lawsuit however was for fake reference pricing. Clearly a scam and there's a good reason it's banned in much of the developed world, just like false advertising.
One thing I noticed was a course would always be 90% off unless I was logged in. Then the course would either a) not have the discount b) have the discount for a few hours and then mark itself up to the “full price”. Basically a way to try and reward immediate purchasing.
Another anecdote is one time I added a class with a 90% discount to my cart before logging in. Once I logged in the discount disappeared.
I stopped using them after their extreme DRM made it literally impossible for me to load videos. I received a refund for most of my courses but still had to do a chargeback for one.
The most annoying part of the DRM is that the mobile app prevents you from taking screenshots. I often listen to courses while doing something else, so taking a screenshot of a slide is an easy way for me to "take notes". The idea that I'm going to use a mobile screenshot to steal content is so far fetched and hostile to paying customers.
Note: screenshots on a computer work fine, which is hilarious because if I were to imagine someone stealing content en-masse, I'd assume they would prefer a computer.
I know that instructors can opt in/out to this feature, but I think it's bogus that it exists at all and I don't fault instructors from having it enabled.
Secretlab appear to get up to this sort of funny business (certainly with their UK pricing). Since October 2022 I've been toying with the idea of buying one of their plain old weave chairs because I'm a big lad and they do XL chairs with sturdier seat pistons.
However I've noticed that ever since I started tracking their prices prior to October last year they've never not been on sale. I'm fairly certain this is in breach of the UK "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008" and the rules surrounding:
"The law, as contained in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, simply says that if a product is on sale or special offer, the retailer must show the original price and it must have been selling at that price for 'a meaningful period of time'."[0]
and:
"Simply offering a product for sale at a stated price is not necessarily enough to use it as a point of comparison. The ASA has upheld complaints about marketers who have claimed to have offered products for sale but were unable to demonstrate that anyone purchased them at that price.
In 2013 the ASA upheld a complaint about a promotion that offered a new toothbrush worth £169.99 in exchange for a customer’s old one. The advertiser stated that this price claim was based on the RRP. However the product was sold at only one retailer, and their price data showed that the brush had only been sold at the RRP of £169.99 for 12 weeks, and that in the other 32 weeks it had been sold for £84.99 or less. This demonstrated that the product was not generally sold at its RRP price and the ASA therefore concluded the claim "worth £169.99" was misleading (Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd, 30 October 2013)."[1]
I've simply stopped taking any notice of sales prices, unless it is on something I buy regularly in which case I might bulk buy at the offer price.
If I need/want something and there happens to be an offer somewhere, that is just a bonus. It may also alter where I buy it from (or exactly which it if there are similar products available for the same need). At the point where I'm parting with money what they think the item is worth means nothing to me and I won't be swayed by it – what matters is if the current price is good enough compared to how I value the item/service.
Never let yourself think you will miss out be not getting a sale item now – it or something else will be at that price again in future. Closing down sales, especially online, are almost always something that sets my scammy sense a-tingling for various reasons.
Always assume a special offer is not so special unless you have researched the market. If you don't have time to look into the details then it isn't that good an offer, and they are trying to rush you so you don't notice until you've paid.
I may occasionally miss out on a genuinely good offer this way, perhaps on something I'll develop a true need for soon, but I'm sure this is incredibly rare.
tl;dr: sales and marketing teams are, overall, lying scammy reprobates and should be treated with extreme suspicion unless you have unequivocal evidence that they are one of the very few “good ones”.
I'm well aware and agree with of all of the points you make. I've lived on this rock for nearly 60 years and have seen all of the scams and bad behaviour and avoided them.
My parents were avid readers of "Which" magazine who's raison d'être was to educate and inform their readers in the UK about consumer protection issues and how to spot when something smells a bit off. This rubbed off on me in my teens.
This is why provided Secretlabs as a likely example of a continued breach of our own laws regarding "sale" prices.
I believe in the Washington Administrative code, a furniture retailer (and maybe more) is only allowed to have a "Closing/Going Out Of Business" sale once per calendar year.
It's always a flash sale and it just happens to be the exact course you're looking at and the sale always ends 12 hours from now. Open up a different browser and go look at that exact same course and it just so happens that the sale is ending exactly 12 hours from time you looked the course on a different browser.
It's a sleazy practice and it irks me that some people just shrug about it.
Udemy first "got" me to buy with one of their crazy sales many years ago. I would never have spent $20 on that course. Over the years I've bought many other courses, perhaps 30.
These helped me directly in my career, general curiosity, and launching a business.
Wow, I've called them out for this myself many times among friends. Guess I'm not crazy.
Fwiw -- there is some good content on Udemy, at least relevant to my interests. All depends on the creator. But the reference prices and constant 'sales' were a shady tactic.
45 comments
[ 0.33 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadDoes it mean anyone can jump in and demand a slice of the pie? What's more important, how will it impact the future? Will Udemy have to stop the fake sales to avoid future lawsuits? $4m seems small considering their revenue.
(Not a lawyer etc) As long as someone purchased a course at the discount price during the period specified (and meets the other criteria), yes - they qualify to get a portion of the $4M.
> how will it impact the future? Will Udemy have to stop the fake sales to avoid future lawsuits? $4m seems small considering their revenue.
The amount is likely based to some degree on the revenue generated by this tactic, so it should in a sense “undo” however they’ve profited from this tactic. If it’s more profitable to keep doing it, I expect there will be another suit similar to this one, and “they were fined and kept doing it” will be a potent argument for massively increasing the amount of the fine as a punitive measure.
This never stops the rest of the corporate world from knowingly and flagrantly breaking the law to make money. Thanks, regulatory capture.
I asked them about this on Twitter but got no reply. I went back to the Udemy site and struggled to find a contact form or similar.
Shady. Very shady.
I frequent Slickdeals.net as well, and have seen similar complaints about other e-comm sites. Shockingly, Amazon has been mentioned.
But when you logged in, it was very obvious that it was $200?
Its annoying, and dark, but its not so much a bait an switch. They are probably offering that $20 price to new users, so if you signed up for the first time it would stay at $20 as you logged into a new account. They just don't make it very clear. I never found it misleading because I never believed the prices until I logged in.
edit Updating to be more technically correct:
> https://twitter.com/RobertFreundLaw/status/16517606508579020...
Basically, a retailer must prove they've actually sold a product at it's base price to a substantial amount of customers, to prove that the reduced/sale price is actually a sale price and not its base price. This prevents customers from believing they're getting a better deal than they are.
> The FTC rule says a former price needs to be “the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.
Go to website > see 80% off > sign in to buy > no longer 80% off
That's a bait and switch, also illegal. This lawsuit however was for fake reference pricing. Clearly a scam and there's a good reason it's banned in much of the developed world, just like false advertising.
is not the same as
> offered
Another anecdote is one time I added a class with a 90% discount to my cart before logging in. Once I logged in the discount disappeared.
I stopped using them after their extreme DRM made it literally impossible for me to load videos. I received a refund for most of my courses but still had to do a chargeback for one.
Note: screenshots on a computer work fine, which is hilarious because if I were to imagine someone stealing content en-masse, I'd assume they would prefer a computer.
I know that instructors can opt in/out to this feature, but I think it's bogus that it exists at all and I don't fault instructors from having it enabled.
However I've noticed that ever since I started tracking their prices prior to October last year they've never not been on sale. I'm fairly certain this is in breach of the UK "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008" and the rules surrounding:
"The law, as contained in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, simply says that if a product is on sale or special offer, the retailer must show the original price and it must have been selling at that price for 'a meaningful period of time'."[0]
and:
"Simply offering a product for sale at a stated price is not necessarily enough to use it as a point of comparison. The ASA has upheld complaints about marketers who have claimed to have offered products for sale but were unable to demonstrate that anyone purchased them at that price.
In 2013 the ASA upheld a complaint about a promotion that offered a new toothbrush worth £169.99 in exchange for a customer’s old one. The advertiser stated that this price claim was based on the RRP. However the product was sold at only one retailer, and their price data showed that the brush had only been sold at the RRP of £169.99 for 12 weeks, and that in the other 32 weeks it had been sold for £84.99 or less. This demonstrated that the product was not generally sold at its RRP price and the ASA therefore concluded the claim "worth £169.99" was misleading (Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd, 30 October 2013)."[1]
[0]: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-are-my-r...
[1]: https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/recommended-retail-pric...
If I need/want something and there happens to be an offer somewhere, that is just a bonus. It may also alter where I buy it from (or exactly which it if there are similar products available for the same need). At the point where I'm parting with money what they think the item is worth means nothing to me and I won't be swayed by it – what matters is if the current price is good enough compared to how I value the item/service.
Never let yourself think you will miss out be not getting a sale item now – it or something else will be at that price again in future. Closing down sales, especially online, are almost always something that sets my scammy sense a-tingling for various reasons.
Always assume a special offer is not so special unless you have researched the market. If you don't have time to look into the details then it isn't that good an offer, and they are trying to rush you so you don't notice until you've paid.
I may occasionally miss out on a genuinely good offer this way, perhaps on something I'll develop a true need for soon, but I'm sure this is incredibly rare.
tl;dr: sales and marketing teams are, overall, lying scammy reprobates and should be treated with extreme suspicion unless you have unequivocal evidence that they are one of the very few “good ones”.
My parents were avid readers of "Which" magazine who's raison d'être was to educate and inform their readers in the UK about consumer protection issues and how to spot when something smells a bit off. This rubbed off on me in my teens.
This is why provided Secretlabs as a likely example of a continued breach of our own laws regarding "sale" prices.
It's a sleazy practice and it irks me that some people just shrug about it.
These helped me directly in my career, general curiosity, and launching a business.
Boy am I glad that "dark pattern" worked on me.
Fwiw -- there is some good content on Udemy, at least relevant to my interests. All depends on the creator. But the reference prices and constant 'sales' were a shady tactic.