On November 8, an offer for loyalty card holders appeared on the website of MediaWorld, a European electronics retailer. The deal: an iPad Air for 15 euros (about $17) instead of the usual €879 (about $1,012). No catch, no strings attached. The proximity to Black Friday only made the offer more plausible. And so several consumers immediately purchased the product by choosing the “payment and pickup in store” opetion, on paper the safest to avoid unexpected problems.
The process was seamless, even for those ordering online. According to the accounts of some users on Reddit, their order was accepted, and after about 40 minutes they received an email confirming the availability of the product.
In the store, the €15 payment went through successfully and MediaWorld delivered the iPads as expected. The terms and conditions attached to the order make no mention of any clause regarding pricing errors or the possibility for the company to request subsequent additions.
MediaWorld’s About-Face
Eleven days later, however, MediaWorld sent a simple email—not a formal communication via certified mail—stating that the published price was “clearly incorrect.” The company then asked the affected customers to choose between two solutions: Keep the iPad and the difference to match the price but with a €150 discount, or return it and receive a refund of the €15 and a €20 discount voucher for their inconvenience.
MediaWorld’s Response
Following the incident, Wired contacted MediaWorld for comment. “We confirm that, in a very short period of time, due to a clearly recognizable technical error caused by an extraordinary and unexpected glitch on our e-commerce platform, some products were mistakenly displayed at prices that, due to their clear and objective disconnect from the true market value and the correct promotional price, should never have been displayed. This was a manifest error, making it economically unsustainable and not representative of our commercial offering,” a MediaWorld spokesperson explains.
Regarding the subsequent intervention to try to recover the products sold, the representative added: “By virtue of the provisions of the current regulations, we found it necessary to intervene, resorting to a legal principle aimed at preserving the contractual balance in the event of an error of this magnitude. Our approach was to prioritize the relationship with the customer and to offer solutions that went beyond the mere application of law. For this reason, we promptly contacted all affected buyers, proposing two alternatives.”
The MediaWorld spokesperson also confirmed to WIRED the two solutions first highlighted by Reddit users: “We offer product retention: the customer has the option to keep the purchased item, paying the difference between the price paid and the correct promotional price. We have also offered a further discount on the amount to be paid. Or return the product: the customer can choose to return the item free of charge, receiving a full refund of the amount already paid. In this case too, we have offered a MediaWorld shopping voucher. We firmly believe that these proposals demonstrate our willingness to support customers and maintain transparency and fairness. We continue to work to improve our shopping experience and maximum protection for our consumers.”
The Legal Issue: Is the Error Really Recognizable?
On the web, many lawyers point out that Article 1428 of the Italian Civil Code allows a contract to be voided if the error is fundamental and recognizable. But the issue, according to consumer lawyer Massimiliano Dona, is more nuanced than it seems.
“The premise is that the November 19 letter—in which MediaWorld demanded the return or purchase of the iPad at near-real price—is not a formal warning or formal notice, especially if sent by ordinary mail, as it is a proposal for a binary agreement. If the consumer ignores it, MediaWorld will evaluate whether to take formal action,” Dona claims.
“That’s why the key issue is whether, from a legal standpoint, MediaWorld’s claim is well-founded or not. To void a contract, it is necessary to demonstrate the consumer’s awareness of abusing the seller’s error. But to have this proof, it is not enough to claim that the 98 percent discount makes the error obvious in the eyes of the customer.” Furthermore, Dona also points to the fact that, “Today prices are not as standard as they once were. Between limited-time offers, flash sales, promotions, and contests (offered mainly on social or in apps) everything is more variable, plus now we are in the midst of the Black Friday discount season. Given these elements, perhaps we can consider it reasonable that the consumer thought of an advertising technique.”
How Does MediaWorld Test Consumer Awareness?
Dona also claims that there is no threshold beyond which the customer must necessarily notice the mistake: “There are other factors to consider. If the buyer is Mrs. Maria, who finds a deal and decides to take it, that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, it’s someone who buys five tablets and then immediately puts them back on sale, or even someone who resells electronics for a living, that’s another matter. In that case, the awareness of the mistake would be more obvious.”
The decisive issue, he claims, is the recognizability of the error: “From a legal point of view, everything revolves around the buyer’s ability to recognize that the price was incorrect. This is the real deciding factor, which must be contextualized both with respect to sales channel used by MediaWorld and the buyer’s professionalism.”
For now, then, the picture remains an evolving one: a public offer completed without dispute, a U-turn that came days later via email, and a legal assessment that would revolve around whether the consumer was able to recognize the error.
This story originally appeared on WIRED Italia and has been translated from Italian.
