PRC Rips USPS for Advertising Language

The U.S. Postal Service was castigated for advertising its operational standards as a “commitment” in a strongly worded decision by the Postal Rate Commission. The statement was made by the PRC in dismissing a mailer’s attempt to recover postage costs for a time-sensitive mailing that was delivered late.

In dismissing the refund bid of national health club chain Life Time Fitness for lack of jurisdiction, the PRC ripped the USPS for saying in its advertisements that operational standards were a commitment that “an ordinary citizen or unsophisticated mailer may reasonably believe….represents an implied warranty.”

It said the marketing materials dealing specifically with Standard A (formerly third class) Mail were “deceptive and inappropriate” because they were a “characterization of what the USPS regards as an operational standard.” These materials were relied upon by Life Time.

The PRC added that the USPS would be face Federal Trade Commission action for false advertising if it were a private company. The USPS is an independent arm of the federal government, not a private enterprise, although it frequently says it wants to operate “in a businesslike” manner, the PRC said.

Telling the USPS to review its advertising and marketing materials to eliminate “any potentially deceptive or misleading language,” the PRC said in today’s economy, businesses must be able to “identify with some degree of accuracy” the quality of its services.

It went on to say that the USPS is acting not in a businesslike way regarding Standard A Mail, but like an agency that seeks to hold itself unaccountable for its performance.” Until the USPS “possesses substantiating delivery data for a particular mail class, it should not proffer a service commitment for that class of mail to the general public,” the PRC added.

Postal officials “don’t agree with the PRC with regard to its criticism of the use of the term commitments and have the matter under review,” USPS spokesman Roy Betts told DIRECT Newsline.

The PRC said it was dismissing Life Time’s refund application because the firm’s complaint “does not describe a postal service failure to charge rates or provide services as defined by law.” In addition, the PRC said that it “is not empowered” to act in the matter. The firm’s complaint “arises from one particular delayed delivery of advertisement sent via Standard A Mail” and is a temporary local service issue instead of one involving national service or postal policy.

Life Time Fitness sought to recover $15,418.76 in postage costs for a 99,000-piece mailing in the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul area that was supposed to have been delivered in early January 1998. It alleged, and postal officials admitted, that the mailing was delivered three weeks late. As a result, Life Time alleged that it lost more than $385,000 in new revenue.

Officials of Life Time Fitness and their lawyer, Bonnie Wilkins, were unavailable for comment at press time.