Every business you shop at nowadays is pushing mobile apps on their customers.

They’re supposed to make life easier, but sometimes they end up creating more confusion than convenience.

So when one customer scanned a toy and believed she was entitled to a coupon that didn’t apply, what followed was a long, frustrating back-and-forth with an employee at the self-scan registers.

Read on for the full story.

Yes, you get $20 off of $100 purchase… of family apparel, NOT toys.

In my store’s mobile application, we have a function where you can scan any item and the app will bring up a coupon for that item.

For example, if you scan a dairy coupon, it’ll bring up coupons for any items related to that department.

Thing is, if we have no coupons for certain items out, then it’ll bring out whatever is in the system.

If you scan an item from the sporting goods department, it’ll bring up coupons for general merchandise if there are no coupons for anything in sporting goods.

It was this very coupon policy that was about to cause a massive headache for the employee.

While I was attending the self-scan registers, I was called over by a lady and her family who had $100 worth of toys (and way, way more than twelve items…) and she was inquiring why her $20 didn’t come off her purchase.

We didn’t have any specials going on at the moment, so I was curious as to where she was getting this idea that she was supposed to get $20 off.

Sure enough, the idea came from the mobile app.

She pulled out her phone, pulled up the application, and scanned the biggest toy that she had sitting in the bagging area (which was some humongous bouncy castle with a ball pit). And there it was!

To see it closer with my own eyes, I pulled out my phone and pulled up the app and scanned it too.

A coupon was brought up.

The coupon stated: $10 off of $50, $20 off of $80, $40 off of $120, or More

It doesn’t take the employee long to identify where this customer went wrong.

I looked closer at the small writing below as she pointed at the coupon for me, saying, “See? I’m supposed to get $20 off of my purchase and it did not come off!”

Below, it said: Men’s, Women’s, or Kid’s apparel purchase. (Excludes Jewelry & Accessories, Shoes, Sporting Goods, and Clearance.)

So they let her know of her error, but she doesn’t seem to be listening.

Me: “…Ma’am, this coupon is for a purchase in apparel, not toys. And the purchase is for $80 dollars’ worth.”

Lady: “Yes, I know, but it still did not come off! I am supposed to get $20 dollars off!”

Lady: “When I want coupon, I scan the item like this.” boop “And this coupon is for this item.” She showed me her phone after she scanned the castle, jabbing her finger at it.

Once again, the employee points out the fine print.

Me: “…Aaaand if you look at the writing below, that coupon is for a purchase in apparel, not toys.” Pointing to small writing below “When you scan an item, the application only brings up the closest related deal in the department. It does not mean that it’ll work for that item.”

Lady: “But the $20 is supposed to come off!”

And this went back and forth with me explaining the same freaking thing more than four or five times to her.

So finally they had to call in reinforcements.

She realized that I was not going to budge, and she had me pull in my co-worker from the systems department, who basically explained THE SAME THING to the lady — which, to no surprise, she argued about with her too.

Systems friend refused to budge as well (she’s stubborn and I love her for it), and the lady gave up and forfeited her order.

I cancelled it off of the machine and had to grab a large cart to put all her stuff in. :’)

READ, lady — READ!

What did Reddit think?

Too many customers are told that if they complain long enough, retail workers will just fold.

Companies often don’t set up their retail workers for success.

Doesn’t this lady understand what apparel means?

Always read the fine print.

If you liked that post, check out this story about a customer who insists that their credit card works, and finds out that isn’t the case.