Bad news if you’re mooching off of someone else’s Costco membership: The retail giant is cracking down.

When you enter Costco, you need to show your membership card to an employee to shop. Costco membership cards are non-transferable, but the company allows members to give a second household card to one other person in their home. Anyone with a card can bring up to two guests to the club during each visit, the company stipulates.

But Costco has noticed that non-members have been sneaking in with membership cards that don’t belong to them — particularly since Costco expanded self-checkout.

Costco recently started asking for shoppers’ membership cards along with a photo ID at the self-checkout registers, the same policy as regular checkout lanes, to crack down. “We don’t feel it’s right that non-members receive the same benefits and pricing as our members,” Costco said in announcing the change.

And now, Costco is testing out a system that requires members to scan their membership cards at the store entrance — instead of just flashing the card to employees. Shoppers have spotted the new scanners at a store in Washington State and posted photos on Reddit.

  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    What are you talking about? In what scenario do you have to buy a membership to buy a ticket? The ticket is your membership.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s a hypothetical that has no bearing on the situation you’re attempting to comment on analogously. In the same way theatres restrict access to the concession stands for people who have paid for a ticket, Costco is restricting access to its warehouse for people who have paid for a membership. It’s not that hard of a concept. Your hypothetical analogy is proving you wrong.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You said that Costco’s membership policy which means you cannot buy a thing in the store without paying for a membership makes sense because they offer something others don’t.

          Movie theaters offer something others don’t. Why doesn’t a membership policy where you can’t buy a movie ticket without paying for a membership make sense?

          I’m going by what you said.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            No, you’re not. You’re ignoring the fact that the ticket is the membership. It is the cost of admission to use the other facilities, including the concession stand. Costco also has a cost of admission. It’s their membership fee.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Irrelevant. It is the cost of admission to use the concession stand to make purchases. Your point was that businesses can’t restrict buying something and that’s clearly not the case, even for movie theatres.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Admission is not membership. We are talking about membership. If I could pay an admission fee to shop at Costco, this would not be an issue. But I cannot. I have to buy a membership.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    It’s the same. The only difference is the term length. A movie ticket gives you access until you leave. A membership allows you access for a year.

                    You’re just arguing semantics because your entire argument fell apart.