Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#51

Post by josephh » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 1:49 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #8

Sounds like there needs to be a “know your merchant” law. It makes sense to me that Amazon might not be liable, but it makes no sense at all that people can’t get in touch with the actual seller.

1. A seller rents some storage space from a landlord to store the products he wants to sell 2. He uses a cloud provider to set up his website for customers to shop 3. He also uses a payment processor to process customers' orders 4. He then uses a shipper to ship them

In this case, should the landlord/cloud provider/payment processor/shipper be liable for defective products that the seller sells? There's a plethora of companies that play one or more aforementioned role(s), and it so happens that Amazon assumes all of them.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#52

Post by ezrast » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 1:51 AM UTC

c2h5oh wrote: post #29

buckminster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consumer has no contract with the manufacturer. It is the vendor's responsibility. Of course, the vendor can sue the manufacturer but that's a separate thing. However, Amazon is successfully arguing that they are not the vendor. The vendor is a third party using Amazon's platform. Edit: that said, I think this needs to change.

Following the same logic eBay would be liable for anything anyone sells on it. And Etsy too. Expanding even further next in the line would be Craigslist, with the defense hinging on argument they don't facilitate payments like etsy, amazon or ebay. So where do we draw the line?

One possible line is that you can't have a vendor-vendee relationship between two parties if one of them doesn't know the other exists. It's nonsensical to claim that Amazon is facilitating a relationship between manufacturer and buyer if we take at face value the claim that they don't even know who the manufacturer is. At that point, Amazon effectively owns the product and is a reseller.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#53

Post by yardie » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 1:53 AM UTC

c2h5oh wrote: post #29

buckminster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consumer has no contract with the manufacturer. It is the vendor's responsibility. Of course, the vendor can sue the manufacturer but that's a separate thing. However, Amazon is successfully arguing that they are not the vendor. The vendor is a third party using Amazon's platform. Edit: that said, I think this needs to change.

Following the same logic eBay would be liable for anything anyone sells on it. And Etsy too. Expanding even further next in the line would be Craigslist, with the defense hinging on argument they don't facilitate payments like etsy, amazon or ebay. So where do we draw the line?

Let’s keep it simple. Whoever takes the money is the vendor. Amazon lists it, amazon fulfills it, and they get paid for it. Sounds like the vendor to me.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#54

Post by marcosdumay » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 1:53 AM UTC

c2h5oh wrote: post #29

buckminster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consumer has no contract with the manufacturer. It is the vendor's responsibility. Of course, the vendor can sue the manufacturer but that's a separate thing. However, Amazon is successfully arguing that they are not the vendor. The vendor is a third party using Amazon's platform. Edit: that said, I think this needs to change.

Following the same logic eBay would be liable for anything anyone sells on it. And Etsy too. Expanding even further next in the line would be Craigslist, with the defense hinging on argument they don't facilitate payments like etsy, amazon or ebay. So where do we draw the line?

If instead of the seller's name the only thing eBay told you was "sold on eBay market", I bet they would be liable too.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#55

Post by ikeboy » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 1:58 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #50

ikeboy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this not to be the case. Many of them are but there is some legitimate inventory there, I know several people in the industry.

I just searched on Amazon for "Apple headphones". On at least the first page, all of the reviews stated they were fake. Can you find a link for genuine Apple headphones from Amazon?

The first link has almost 11 thousand reviews and currently 34 sellers. 44% of those reviews are 5 star. 34% are 1 star.

It is certainly the case that some of those sellers are selling fakes. It is also likely that some are selling authentic products.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#56

Post by PhasmaFelis » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 2:02 AM UTC

josephh wrote: post #51

mikeash wrote: post #8

Sounds like there needs to be a “know your merchant” law. It makes sense to me that Amazon might not be liable, but it makes no sense at all that people can’t get in touch with the actual seller.

1. A seller rents some storage space from a landlord to store the products he wants to sell 2. He uses a cloud provider to set up his website for customers to shop 3. He also uses a payment processor to process customers' orders 4. He then uses a shipper to ship them In this case, should the landlord/cloud provider/payment processor/shipper be liable for defective products that the seller sells? There's a plethora of…

All of them should presumably be expected to have some idea of what entity they're doing business with.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#57

Post by crazybit » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

It makes sense for Amazon to not be liable for damages caused by the manufacturer (should eBay be liable for everything sold on its platform?).

But doesn't it also make sense for Amazon to be liable for allowing 3rd parties to sell counterfeit or not-as-advertised items?

Also, how far does this go? Where is the line crossed?

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#58

Post by astura » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #35

takeda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned that a friend was (maybe still is) selling vitamins and probiotics through Amazon. I wasn't able to learn who was producing it only knew that it was made in US and most likey a neighbor. He also was selling vitamin K, when asked my doctor about she said she would recommend not to take it, and the daily dose suggested is typically prescribed and usually taken one time. That seriously made me cautious about i…

Well seeing that most experts think that taking vitamins and are worthless anyway, it wouldn't really matter if they were fake.... https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20131216... I'm not convinced that taking probiotics isn't junk science.

It would matter if they contained unlisted ingredients that were allergens or worse, toxic. It would also matter to someone like me - I take vitamins because of measured vitamin deficiency that I wasn't able to correct with diet alone. If my vitamins did not contain vitamins I would start to have deficiency symptoms again.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#59

Post by wtvanhest » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 2:07 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #36

Forget about the main focus of the article... (I would prefer liability to lie with the manufacturer, no store online or offline is equipped to expertly and independently analyze and judge the safety of all the things they sell, but whatever.) But how on earth can Amazon sell something and then lose track of the merchant, especially a foreign one? There seem to be so many necessary guarantees this breaks, not just pr…

IMNAL, My guess is that they can establish records of transactions they do with sellers and adhere to all transaction laws... but once they take possession of the good, they comingle it and can no longer tell where it came from.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#60

Post by mikeash » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 2:08 AM UTC

josephh wrote: post #51

mikeash wrote: post #8

Sounds like there needs to be a “know your merchant” law. It makes sense to me that Amazon might not be liable, but it makes no sense at all that people can’t get in touch with the actual seller.

1. A seller rents some storage space from a landlord to store the products he wants to sell 2. He uses a cloud provider to set up his website for customers to shop 3. He also uses a payment processor to process customers' orders 4. He then uses a shipper to ship them In this case, should the landlord/cloud provider/payment processor/shipper be liable for defective products that the seller sells? There's a plethora of…

Sorry, you probably caught my post before I added the "not" I managed to miss the first time around. I meant to say that I see why Amazon should not be liable, but they should at least be able to get you to the right people.