Gov’t removes Royal Supermarket accreditation after price hike controversy

The Macau Consumer Council (CC) has decided to rescind supermarket chain Royal Supermarket’s accreditation as a ‘Certified Store Quality Symbol’ after several complaints from residents of price hikes following the beginning of the consumer e-voucher scheme.

Following the beginning of the MOP3,000 (US$375) consumer e-voucher scheme on May 1 – one of the Macau government’s measures to boost the local economy during the Covid-19 crisis – several residents complained, either to the CC or in Royal’s social media pages, of price hikes.

On Sunday, the CC had indicated that since the scheme was launched, some 382 reports have been received regarding price increases, with 80 per cent concerning local supermarkets.

However, initially, the CC had dismissed the complaints supermarket staff putting the wrong price tags on items or changing prices of formerly discounted products.

The consumer rights watchdog now announced that after ‘hearing and analyzing clarifications’ from the supermarket chain attributing the price hikes on an alleged ‘failure to fix prices’, it considered the matter ‘unacceptable’ and therefore decided to remove the chain’s ‘Certified Store Quality Symbol’ from today, under the terms of the Regulation and Commitment of Certified Stores.

‘After the investigation, the CC found that the supermarket involved did not clearly indicate the final price of the products offered for sale, as well as did not ensure the accuracy and clarity of the information on the price of the products, which misled consumers by damaging their rights. and interests,’ the department noted.

Stores that have completed one year as a CC member store and have passed the annual evaluation of the council can obtain the Certified Store quality symbol, but the decision to remove the certification does not incur in other sanctions to the supermarket chain.

The CC also stated that it has made several appeals to local business sectors to fulfil their social responsibilities and not raise prices unreasonably, claiming that otherwise, ‘their reputation may be adversely affected’.