Skeds:
There is a huge imbalance of power, between retailers and consumers.
The retailers specify and procure the products, they design and build the stores, the post the signage, create policies, hire and train the staff, create the advertising, and so on. At each step, the retailers can optimize the advantages for themselves, and maximum how much they give back to the consumer.
So, the consumer is at a disadvantage because they can only compare retailers, perform some due diligence, and try to make the right choices. There is precious little in the way of laws and regulations to protect them.
It's very disheartening to hear from a consumer like yourself that you don't even like the meager laws that we do have. We are also routinely misinformed, here, by the CT people who claim that the laws don't even exist, or don't apply to us. Even then, the laws are rarely enforced.
So, your obvious sympathy for the difficulties the retailers may have faced, is not going to get a warm reception at a pro-consumer web site. You will need, as the saying goes, to "get used to it".
Sure, there are going to be consumers who are unhappy when they show up on the last say of the sale, and all the stock is gone.
Some might show up on the 2nd day of a 'supplies are limited' sale, and be unhappy that the limited supplies are already gone.
But there are certainly cases where retailers advertise a sale, don't order or stock reasonable amounts, don't tell consumers there isn't enough, and don't offer or honour Rain Checks. in these cases, the retailers are clearly inconveniencing consumers, getting extra traffic they don't deserve, and are likely breaking the law.
In short, you seem to be focused on situation that are not 'bait and switch', and ignoring the cases that are, where a customer has a legitimate complaint, and the retailer should be held to account.
It's nice that you know the in's and out's of inventory control.
The these problems are entirely the problem of the retailer, and shouldn't be foisted onto the consumer.
If the retailer can't do their job properly, then they should pay the price, and stick to the rules next time.
This is because its an inventory issue not an ethics issue. And you can fix those things.
Failure to follow the laws, to the disadvantage of consumers and the honest retailers is, indeed, and ethics issue.
A retailer's duties cannot be disregarding just because, "Gee, it's really hard to follow the law"!
Sorry, but you seem to be trying to 'blame the victim' in the cases where actual Bait and Switch has taken place, and even ignoring the very definitions and laws on which this is based.
I find that very disappointing. However, it seems that you still have a thing or two that could be valuable for consumers to hear.