Nebraska gas stations do not break the law with low prices on some pumps, rule the rules | Crime and courts

In a 13-page decision released Monday, Lancaster County Judge Robert Otte ruled in favor of Mark Wilkinson, owner of eight Fat Dogs stores on Interstate 80, from Lincoln to Ogallala.

"Wilkinson's business practices can be seen as smart and smart," Otte wrote. "These practices have attracted and attracted the inattentive consumer. However, the vigilant customer has the opportunity to buy gas at a discounted price compared to other options. "

Wilkinson was sued in 2017 by a coalition of customers, competitors and other store owners, who had claimed in a non-jury trial in April that he was breaking the Nebraska law with deceptive and misleading advertising.

Unsuspecting customers will not know they have to look for the low price displayed on the sign, they said. And they might not realize that it is too late that they have paid more than expected.

"This is typical of bait," said Sen. John McCollister, who testified that he stopped at a Fat Dogs near North Platte to find that the price at the pump was greater than who had arrested him. He left without having any gasoline, he added.

And Dan O'Neil, whose Quik Stop store competes with Fat Dogs in North Platte, testified that Wilkinson's practices spoil the industry, and North Platte a black eye. He feared that it would stop tourists from stopping.

"I have a huge investment in this intersection and in the community," O'Neil said at the trial.

Wilkinson and his lawyers argued, and Otte confirmed, that the awnings, dispensers and pumps at each station direct customers to the cheapest gasoline.

"There is nothing to suggest that Wilkinson announces a product that is not available," said lawyer Daniel Klaus during the trial.

In the end, Otte acknowledged that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Wilkinson had breached the state law of deceptive marketing practices or the law of consumer protection.

There is no doubt that Fat Dogs' customers have paid more than expected, he wrote. But that would not happen if they were careful.

"No witness testified that the signage in question was unclear, misleading or deceptive," wrote the judge. "In fact, witnesses who testified generally at trial agreed that if they had been attentive to the signage and posted prices, they would have made the choice."