Consumers’ Association finds many till receipt errors again
The till price regularly differs from the shelf price, especially at supermarkets with paper price labels.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Supermarkets are once again regularly making errors in which the price on the shelf label does not match the till receipt. This is according to a sample survey by the Consumers’ Association at eleven national and regional supermarket chains.
Mystery shoppers bought 25 products with a paper price label at each chain. According to the Consumers’ Association, most discrepancies occurred at Vomar, Jumbo and DekaMarkt. At Vomar, the price was wrong for almost one in five products checked, at Jumbo for about one in seven, and at DekaMarkt for one in ten.
At other chains, the share of errors in the sample was between about one in sixteen and one in nine products. The survey involved a limited check of selected branches and offers. The results therefore do not represent a nationwide error margin for all transactions.
Electronic shelf labels appear to reduce the likelihood of discrepancies. At Albert Heijn and Lidl, which largely use electronic labels, the Consumers’ Association found virtually no errors in this sample. That does not mean that a price difference never occurs there.
The consumer organisation says that earlier agreements with supermarkets initially had an effect, but that some shops began using more paper signs again. According to the association, Jumbo has reintroduced its correct-price guarantee. Other chains also offer schemes under which customers may sometimes receive the product free of charge if there is a discrepancy.
For consumers, the main thing is to check the till receipt and report any discrepancy to the shop immediately. The legal and contractual conditions of a shop’s guarantee may differ from one chain to another. The sample says nothing about deliberate deception: the association mainly attributes the errors to the use and management of paper price labels.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Consumers’ Association checked prices at eleven supermarket chains.
- Several chains had discrepancies between shelf prices and till prices.
- The sample was limited to 25 products per chain and is not automatically representative of all transactions.
- Electronic price labels were associated with fewer errors in this sample.
Left
Arguments Price information is a basic condition for fair trade. Supermarkets must actively prevent errors, compensate customers automatically and invest in systems that do not leave consumers with the task of checking prices.
Values Consumer protection, transparency and the balance of power between supermarket chains and customers.
Consequences Stricter standards may increase costs, but make prices more reliable and prevent vulnerable consumers from paying too much.
Centre
Arguments Shops must display correct prices, but a sample survey should be interpreted carefully. Practical improvements such as electronic labels and clear guarantee schemes may be more effective than heavy penalties for every incident.
Values Proportionality, reliability and feasibility.
Consequences Gradual digitisation can reduce errors without immediately burdening small shops with high investment costs.
Right
Arguments Supermarkets must take responsibility for their administration, but competition and freedom of choice can also encourage shops to use better systems. Rules should not unnecessarily lead to higher grocery prices.
Values Entrepreneurial freedom, efficiency and limited regulatory burdens.
Consequences More obligations may improve compliance, but costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The sample survey, the chains mentioned and the percentages were confirmed by two public sources. The text makes clear that this was a limited sample and draws no conclusion about intent.
- confirmed The Consumers’ Association investigated eleven supermarket chains. — This is stated in the publication and described in more detail in reporting by Levensmiddelenkrant. source
- confirmed At Vomar, almost one in five prices was incorrect. — The sample results are presented in this way by Levensmiddelenkrant. source
- confirmed Virtually no errors were found at Albert Heijn and Lidl. — This is mentioned in the summary of the sample survey. source
Editor's note
The sample survey and percentages come from the Consumers’ Association’s publication. The results are not representative of every shop or purchase; intent and the nationwide scale of the problem have not been established.Sources
- Weer kassabonfouten bij supermarkten — Consumentenbond
- Consumentenbond vindt prijsfouten door papieren schapkaartjes — Levensmiddelenkrant