Editing WHSmith (section)

==Controversies==
On 19 June 2009, WHSmith apologised after promoting a book on cellar rapist [[Fritzl case|Josef Fritzl]] as one of the "Top 50 Books for Dad" as a [[Father's Day]] gift.<ref>{{cite web |first1=Amar |last1=Singh |url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23709609-whsmith-sorry-for-josef-fritzl-fathers-day-promotion.do |title=WHSmith sorry for Josef Fritzl Father's Day promotion |date=19 June 2009 |website=London Evening Standard |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100608110723/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23709609-whsmith-sorry-for-josef-fritzl-fathers-day-promotion.do |archive-date= Jun 8, 2010 }}</ref><ref>Stina Backer, "[https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/fritzl-a-perfect-gift-for-fathers-day-say-tesco-and-wh-smith-1710733.html Fritzl: a perfect gift for Father's Day, say Tesco and W. H. Smith]", ''The Independent'' (London), 20 June 2009.</ref>

In October 2012, WHSmith faced criticism from shooters after the sale of shooting magazines to children under 14 was banned, although it is legal for children under 14 to go shooting. The decision appeared to follow a campaign by animal rights activists. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) campaigned against the ban, including a 12,000+ signature petition. In mid-November it emerged that the restrictions had been removed from all UK shooting magazines.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9606557/WH-Smith-bans-children-from-buying-shooting-magazines.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9606557/WH-Smith-bans-children-from-buying-shooting-magazines.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=W. H. Smith bans children from buying shooting magazines |work=The Daily Telegraph |date= 14 October 2012|access-date=30 March 2013 |location=London |first=Richard |last=Eden}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9630068/Team-GB-shooting-coach-hits-out-at-WH-Smith-magazine-ban.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9630068/Team-GB-shooting-coach-hits-out-at-WH-Smith-magazine-ban.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Team GB shooting coach hits out at W. H. Smith magazine ban |work=The Daily Telegraph |date= 24 October 2012|access-date=30 March 2013 |location=London |first=Rosa |last=Silverman}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/C21BBE99-3B1D-4002-93C55619A5B7EFEB |title=Key Issues |publisher=Basc.org.uk |access-date=30 March 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130202183330/http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/C21BBE99-3B1D-4002-93C55619A5B7EFEB |archive-date=2 February 2013  }}</ref>

On 14 October 2013, WHSmith took their website offline because "unacceptable titles were appearing on their website". These were e-books with themes of abuse.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24519179 |title=W. H. Smith takes website offline after porn e-book scandal |work=[[BBC News]] |date=14 October 2013 |access-date=19 January 2014}}</ref>

The chain was criticised in 2014 for the condition of its shops, with both analysts and customers accusing the chain of under-investing in its estate.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1369095/the-dismal-decline-whsmith/|title=The Dismal Decline of WHSmith|date=21 October 2015|work=Management Today|access-date=25 January 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cityam.com/1415782381/whsmith-share-price-remains-flat-despite-fall-underlying-sales-and-its-carpets-are-still|title=WH Smith share price remains flat despite fall in underlying sales – and its carpets are still a mess|date=12 November 2014|work=City AM|access-date=25 January 2016}}</ref>

In 2015, an investigation by ''[[The Independent]]'' revealed that WHSmith and other airport retailers were charging VAT to shoppers travelling outside the [[European Union]], then claiming the [[Value-added tax|VAT]] back from the [[Government of the United Kingdom|government]] and not passing the refund on to customers.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Neville|first1=Simon|title=WH Smith continues to demand boarding passes from passengers to avoid paying VAT|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/airport-scam-wh-smith-continues-to-demand-boarding-passes-from-passengers-to-avoid-paying-vat-a6695876.html|access-date=23 August 2017|work=The Independent|date=15 October 2015}}</ref> This was made possible by the practice of scanning customer's boarding passes at the till point – solely for the benefit of the company – which made the passengers unwitting accomplices in their own deception. After a public outcry, a customer revolt in which many refused to hand over their boarding passes, and an intervention by [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]], the company confirmed in March 2017 that it would pass on the VAT reduction to customers spending over £6, who were travelling outside the EU.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Calder|first1=Simon|title=Boots and WH Smith are giving tax back to airport customers – how does it work?|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boots-wh-smith-airports-tax-money-back-refund-how-does-it-work-explained-a7628956.html|access-date=23 August 2017|work=The Independent|date=14 March 2017}}</ref>

In 2015, the company was also criticised for the prices charged in its branches in hospitals, after media investigations found some items to be on sale at significantly higher prices than in high street branches.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/wh-smith-prices-hospitals-nhs-patients|title=WH Smith to cut prices in hospitals after claims of exploiting NHS patients|work=[[The Guardian]] |date=22 September 2015|access-date=25 January 2016}}</ref> In May 2018, WHSmith apologised after it was revealed that it had made more than £700 by selling single tubes of toothpaste for £7.99 through its branch in [[Pinderfields Hospital]], [[Wakefield]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44084638|title=WHSmith 'sorry' for Pinderfields Hospital £7.99 toothpaste|work=[[BBC News]] |date=12 May 2018|access-date=12 May 2018}}</ref> The price was described as an 'error' and WHSmith promised that the proceeds from the sales would be donated to a local charity. The price was restored to £2.49, still more than three times the price of 80p charged in a nearby [[Tesco]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/wh-smith-toothpaste-8-pinderfields-hospital-a8348001.html|title=WH Smith criticised for selling toothpaste at £8 a tube in hospital|work=The Independent|date=12 May 2018|access-date=12 May 2018}}</ref>

In 2023, the company was found to have broken the minimum wage law, having failed to pay around £1 million to 17,607 of its workers. The company said that this was because of an error related to its uniform policy, with a spokesperson saying "Following a review with [[HM Revenue and Customs|HMRC]] in 2019, and in common with a number of retailers, it was brought to our attention that we had misinterpreted how the statutory wage regulations were applied to our uniform policy for staff working in our stores. This was a genuine error and it was rectified immediately with all colleagues reimbursed in 2019".<ref>{{Cite web |date=21 June 2023 |title=Swindon-based retail giant fined after failing to pay staff £1 million |url=https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/23604631.wh-smith-fined-government-failing-pay-staff-1-million/ |access-date=22 June 2023 |website=Swindon Advertiser |language=en}}</ref>