[bombcar]

In most of the US that’d be illegal (unless the four pack was itself a separate product instead of four individual ones). And “two for $5” and “buy one at $5 get one free” are considered different - the first almost always has to work out to $2.50 each unless they get very explicit with a “save $1 when you buy two” wording. Most stores don’t bother.

[runnerup]

It varies state-to-state. Texas allows "2-for-$2" and "1-for-$1.50" in the same store at the same time.

[nonamenoslogan]

This is pretty common in Idaho too, 2 for $2.22 or a single for $1.79 is the 20oz soda deal in just about every convenience store.

[dwringer]

Whoa, 2 for $2.22 is something I haven't seen for 15 years here in northern WV. Usually like 2.19 for one, and two is pushing $3.75 now (maybe $3.50 if you're a rewards member).

I suppose we have excise taxes to thank for that.

They do seem quite at liberty to put signs that say 2/3.50 and then have the individual price listed higher beside it.

[bombcar]

Yeah, the key is they have to be explicit about both prices ($1.79 for one) - if they just say 2 for $2.22 they have to sell one for $1.11.

[djrogers]

That's the opposite of GP's example - it was higher cost to buy 4 together than 4 individually.

[thaumasiotes]

> In most of the US that’d be illegal (unless the four pack was itself a separate product instead of four individual ones).

Really? Because KFC does this all the time with a la carte biscuits. The per-item rate is higher if you buy four (as advertised on the menu) than if you were to buy one four times in a row.

[bombcar]

If it's part of some combo it can fly, but if it's literally "order 4 and get charged more than ordering 1 four times" you can probably report them to the Commerce Department.