Fragrance lawsuit settlement stinks

As a consumer, two articles caught my eye in the business pages ("A sweet deal in antitrust case" and "The price is right - mostly," both published Aug. 16).

The antitrust article reports, "Millions of shoppers will be eligible to receive free perfume, cologne, and makeup from the region's biggest department stores . . . to settle claims that the department stores and designer brands violated antitrust laws and conspired to fix prices." The plaintiffs' lawyers, on the other hand, are getting paid in cold cash - to the tune of $24 million. How come consumers get fragrances while the lawyers get cash? That smells to me!

"The price is right - mostly" reports that Massachusetts stores were fined $1.2 million for overcharging shoppers more than 15,000 times since 2007. The article then notes, "retailers have long complained about the state's pricing laws, which require prices to be affixed to most items in the stores."

What these retailers conveniently ignore is that placing prices directly on their merchandise helps shoppers catch pricing errors at the register.

Colman M. Herman, Dorchester Lower Mills

All this explains why retailers and supermarkets pushed hard this legislative session to water down our state pricing laws to cut inspections to once a year, and reduce fines by 90 percent ("The price is right - mostly").

Instead, here's a novel idea for retailers: Just put the right price on the item, on the shelf, and at the checkout. That way you won't be fined by those pesky inspectors, or bothered by complaining customers.

Edgar Dworsky, Somerville

I read with interest the article on Massachusetts green legislation ("Green, with envy," Aug. 8). I applaud this effort with the crucial exception of the Global Warming Solutions Act requiring an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Carbon dioxide in the air, whether natural or man-made, is the source of all our food and, increasingly, our fuel. Lowering carbon dioxide would clearly lower crop yields and less solar energy would be trapped in vegetation, causing more to be converted to heat. Our choice would be to starve millions or to cut down more tropical or temperate forests for farmland. Either solution would result in man-made global warming.

Walter D. McVicar, Bedford, N.Y.

HAVE AN OPINION? Letters intended for publication should include the writer's name, address, and daytime phone number. All letters are subject to editing. E-mail letters to business@globe.com; fax to 617-929-3183; or mail to Business Letters, The Boston Globe, P.O. Box 55819, Boston, MA 02205-5819.