Home > Personal Finance > A Proposed Law Beer Drinkers Would Love

Comments 0 Comments

In most states, it’s illegal to over-serve patrons in bars. A law proposed in Michigan would make it illegal to under-serve them, too.

The legislation would ban bars and restaurants from delivering anything less than 16 ounces when a customer orders a “pint” of beer.

There’s no research to suggest there is widespread stuffing of Michigan drinkers, but state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) told local media he got the idea for the law when he was under-served.

[Article: The Truth About Credit Repair]

“When people buy a pint and they’re served less than a pint, it strikes me as sort of low-level fraud,” Irwin said to MLive.com.

Now this is consumer protection at work.

Local government keeping close tabs on what goes into the glass in bars isn’t new. In 2011, the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control raided 29 bars as part of …wait for it…“Operation Swill.” The bars were committing an old-fashioned bait-and-switch, using cheap liquor (or other substances) in expensive liquor bottles. One wonders how authorities caught on, but I digress.

Fighting for Consumer Protections

Michigan has a reputation for protecting consumers in small but important transactions, and for truth in labeling. It was among the last states to require that grocery stores place price tags on all items; former head of Detroit Consumer Affairs office Esther Shapiro was a bit of a poster child for them.

While getting 15 ounces instead of 16 ounces when ordering in a pint of beer, the concept is a pretty big deal in consumer protection. It’s been dubbed “inflation by degradation” by economist Caroline Baum. In its simplest form, consumer goods sellers simply shrink their packages by an ounce or two every year and keep the price steady. Consumers are fooled into missing the effective price increase.

[Article: How Do I Dispute an Error on My Credit Report?]

There are other ways to “shrink” a product, however. Shrink the service. Take passenger flights, for example. Imagine an airline with a certain flight to Chicago that had an on-time rate of 90% five years ago; that rate is 50% today. Even if the price is the same, fliers are getting less for their money — the odds they will get where they are going on time are considerably less. Since that’s why you fly — to get somewhere fast — fliers are getting less for what they pay (and sometimes they’re paying more for the service!).

So on principal, consumer advocates should cheer Michigan’s effort to make sure that a pint is a pint.  You only wish that kind of zeal would also be poured into other important areas of consumer protection.

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team