Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#41

Post by toxican » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:35 PM UTC

yahna wrote: post #39

toxican wrote: post #34

So I bought a pack of glasses off of Amazon a few weeks ago. I made sure they were listed as adhering to the ISO standard before buying, confirmed the ISO logo and # on the glasses themselves once they arrived, and then proceeded to try them out and observe the sun a bit. That evening I then saw an article along these lines about fake glasses flooding Amazon. Curious, I checked my purchase history and the listing had…

> Probably gonna run to Lowes If you can find them still.

I'm way out of the path of totality and I live in a small town, I should be ok. But we'll see. Failing that I'll just make a pin hole viewer.

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#42

Post by oasisbob » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:35 PM UTC

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #30

I work with Amazon sellers (including on getting suspended sellers reinstated). I am not sure that his story is the actual story. If the glasses were counterfeit, obviously his suspension was justified and he might have committed a felony. If they were authentic but just unsafe, he was foolish to have listed them when buying in such quantity and it's not surprising that Amazon would suspend him for trying to sell the…

> Most frequently counterfeited (like Jewelry) or otherwise problematic/hazardous categories are 'category gated' and require you to submit a bunch of documentation to sell in it.

I find it surprising that Amazon doesn't gate protective products that can injure people when there's so much focus on counterfeits which primarily injure brands. This time they got burned by simple category 1 PPE and made a big stink about sunglasses, but still allow non-conforming category 3* PPE to be sold.

example: https://www.amazon.com/YXGOOD-Treestand-Harness-Climbing-Fir...

There's no way that this product would withstand any sort of scrutiny if Amazon actually requested the conformity documentation before selling it. Returned it and reported it - still for sale.

Seems insane that luggage is gated when safety products aren't.

* I'm using the European terminology here because it gives a pretty sane way of thinking about and handling the certification for PPE. Compliance in the US is way more fragmented across different product classes.

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#43

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:35 PM UTC

paxy wrote: post #38

toxican wrote: post #34

So I bought a pack of glasses off of Amazon a few weeks ago. I made sure they were listed as adhering to the ISO standard before buying, confirmed the ISO logo and # on the glasses themselves once they arrived, and then proceeded to try them out and observe the sun a bit. That evening I then saw an article along these lines about fake glasses flooding Amazon. Curious, I checked my purchase history and the listing had…

There is no way I'm ever staring directly at the (full, non-eclipsed) sun for 15 minutes, no matter how good the glasses claim to be.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#44

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:36 PM UTC

vec wrote: post #26

ballenf wrote: post #3

When product liability lawsuits start flying, every point the product touches along its route to the consumer gets named. The ones with deep pockets especially. As big as amazon is, this could have been noticeable exposure, especially if they are partially self-insured and/or have other risk-sharing provisions in place. Think: class-action lawsuit on an order of magnitude approaching asbestos. I'm exaggerating a bit,…

I'm not a lawyer, but intuitively it seems like the more control they exercise over their products the weaker the claim that they're just a middleman becomes. Wouldn't a record of being directly involved in quality control significantly damage their case in the event that a lawsuit does occur?

In the US, products liability law places responsibility for defective products on all commercial participants in the chain, from manufacturer to the final retail seller. It doesn't matter whether they're involved in any QC at all; it is sufficient that they're selling a product for profit.

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#45

Post by Stratoscope » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:36 PM UTC

toxican wrote: post #33

Stratoscope wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experienced eclipse watcher here. For the partial eclipse, I recommend a pinhole projector instead of eclipse glasses, especially for children but for adults too. It is 100% safe, because you never look directly at the sun. For the total eclipse during totality , the only way to view it is with no eye protection at all. You won't see a thing with eclipse glasses or a pinhole projector. And binoculars are highly recom…

I was under the impression that the diamond ring is what makes it so dangerous to look at an eclipse with naked eyes. Because your eyes adjust to the darkness and in an instant it's flooded with a fuckton of sunlight.

There is definitely some truth to that. You wouldn't want to keep staring at the diamond ring! Or any of the partial eclipse.

This is anecdata, but I viewed the 1979 total eclipse with binoculars, and when the diamond ring and Baily's beads appeared at the end of totality, I kept looking at them with the binoculars for a few seconds longer than I should have. It didn't damage my vision in the slightest.

I'm not saying I recommend that! But if you look away the moment they appear, you will be fine. Otherwise organizations like NASA and the American Astronomical Society wouldn't recommend viewing the total eclipse with binoculars.

For some more reputable sources than my own anecdotes, I posted several links in a couple of Reddit comments a while back:

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6rkqr0/the_path_of_t...

I was also involved in a discussion in this Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6lyei5/befor...

You don't want to risk your vision at all, of course, but in other recent eclipses, many people were too cautious and based their decisions on fear, as happened to this astronomer when he was a child:

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-ecli...

One other thing I forgot to mention: if you are viewing the total eclipse, don't bother taking pictures! Totality will end all too soon, and the time you spend fiddling with your camera is time you won't get to experience the eclipse.

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#46

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #31

vec wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but intuitively it seems like the more control they exercise over their products the weaker the claim that they're just a middleman becomes. Wouldn't a record of being directly involved in quality control significantly damage their case in the event that a lawsuit does occur?

A business is required to do due diligence for the business it does. Doesn't matter if it's a marketplace, a seller, a reseller, or whatever. Avoiding quality control on purpose is no excuse. That's a proof that you are not following the law and that can be considered as aggravating circumstances if you avoid it on purpose. That's the sort of thing that a judge may consider as a reason to send you to jail for longer.

Products liability law is civil, not criminal law. Quality Control doesn't absolve any commercial participant from liability for a defective product. Whether or not QC is required depends on the product (i.e., generally it is required for food at every level but retail, whereas it may be mostly optional for electronics).

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#47

Post by nfriedly » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:41 PM UTC

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #30

I work with Amazon sellers (including on getting suspended sellers reinstated). I am not sure that his story is the actual story. If the glasses were counterfeit, obviously his suspension was justified and he might have committed a felony. If they were authentic but just unsafe, he was foolish to have listed them when buying in such quantity and it's not surprising that Amazon would suspend him for trying to sell the…

> Amazon does have all kinds of escalation features and different levels of seller support to deal with a suspension.

Hah, my amazon seller account got automatically suspended due to at $0.12 balance that Amazon had added retroactively and never notified me about. I paid it and figured it would be automatically un-suspended, but nope...

I reached out through every support channel I could find. All of my seller account tickets were automatically closed as "resolved" without any human response. Twitter gave me the run-around. Someone on the forum said they'd look into it, but nothing changed.

But you know worked? Canceling all of my AWS services and explaining that it was due to shoddy treatment from other parts Amazon. My seller account was un-frozen a few days later. I let the last item of mine they had sell and haven't looked back since.

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#48

Post by bluGill » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:41 PM UTC

vec wrote: post #26

ballenf wrote: post #3

When product liability lawsuits start flying, every point the product touches along its route to the consumer gets named. The ones with deep pockets especially. As big as amazon is, this could have been noticeable exposure, especially if they are partially self-insured and/or have other risk-sharing provisions in place. Think: class-action lawsuit on an order of magnitude approaching asbestos. I'm exaggerating a bit,…

I'm not a lawyer, but intuitively it seems like the more control they exercise over their products the weaker the claim that they're just a middleman becomes. Wouldn't a record of being directly involved in quality control significantly damage their case in the event that a lawsuit does occur?

In many cases amazon is clearly liable. Amazon is the one who mixed unsafe and safe glasses. When someone ordered from a safe seller amazon didn't always ship the glasses that seller provided, they shipped something which might be safe or might be dangerous.

If this goes to court this guy is safe because his supplier will show up with their lawyers (and deeper pockets) and point out that their glasses are safe. They will show that Amazon was the party who didn't take care.

Note, there are many different ways to sell on amazon. I'm not clear which route this guy took, only some result in nobody knowing if the glasses amazon ships are safe.

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#49

Post by jethro_tell » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

vec wrote: post #26

ballenf wrote: post #3

When product liability lawsuits start flying, every point the product touches along its route to the consumer gets named. The ones with deep pockets especially. As big as amazon is, this could have been noticeable exposure, especially if they are partially self-insured and/or have other risk-sharing provisions in place. Think: class-action lawsuit on an order of magnitude approaching asbestos. I'm exaggerating a bit,…

I'm not a lawyer, but intuitively it seems like the more control they exercise over their products the weaker the claim that they're just a middleman becomes. Wouldn't a record of being directly involved in quality control significantly damage their case in the event that a lawsuit does occur?

well, you can't start that today right before someone's eyes get burned out. You could have taken that stance in 2000.

Re: Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant

#50

Post by bluGill » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #44

vec wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but intuitively it seems like the more control they exercise over their products the weaker the claim that they're just a middleman becomes. Wouldn't a record of being directly involved in quality control significantly damage their case in the event that a lawsuit does occur?

In the US, products liability law places responsibility for defective products on all commercial participants in the chain, from manufacturer to the final retail seller. It doesn't matter whether they're involved in any QC at all; it is sufficient that they're selling a product for profit.

Right, but in this case several parties will get out because they are not part of the chain because amazon did not carefully preserve the full chain. Amazon will be liable to the entirely of the chain not just a part because they didn't track the full train on each product.