Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

californiaglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 386 posts

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#271

Post by cronix »

kazinator wrote: post #251
jarym wrote: post #9

Common sense. Amazon want to ‘own’ the customer relationship and go to great lengths to that end then it follows they will have to ‘own’ any liability too. Imagine you went into a retail store with a faulty product and they were to try fob you off saying you need to go to their supplier/wholesaler/manufacturer. It mostly doesn’t work that way thanks to most consumer protection laws in place.

> went into a retail store with a faulty product and they were to try fob you off saying you need to go to their supplier/wholesaler/manufacturer Far from unheard of, sadly.

I actually see this from some manufacturers though. A lot say somewhere something like "if you have an issue with this product, DO NOT RETURN TO THE STORE...contact us."

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#272

Post by jdashg »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #92

Wow, here is the actual decision : https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2020-d07... It definitely looks like Amazon is going to have to accept strict liability in California. That will make it interesting to see what they do. Do they leave California? (their biggest US market) or do they clean up their FBA act? I'm hoping for the latter, as the justices argue in the decision that is exactly the intent…

California's one of the top economies in the world, they aren't leaving. California has a ton of power. Do auto makers even make "49 state" cars anymore?

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#273

Post by bjustin »

cronix wrote: post #271
kazinator wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> went into a retail store with a faulty product and they were to try fob you off saying you need to go to their supplier/wholesaler/manufacturer Far from unheard of, sadly.

I actually see this from some manufacturers though. A lot say somewhere something like "if you have an issue with this product, DO NOT RETURN TO THE STORE...contact us."

The products I see with a plea like this tend to be difficult to set up or use for some reason or other. I always assumed that they have a higher than usual return rate and are trying to reduce that by asking people to call them for support.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#274

Post by crazygringo »

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place.

Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility?

No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon itself with 1,000,000's of items. Plus it would be incredibly redundant.

What is the justification for this law at all?

(And if you say it's for international products, then the onus should be on the importer who takes responsibility on behalf of the manufacturer.)

EDIT: virtually every comment that has replied so far is talking about defects, warranty, etc. But that's not with this article is about -- it's about liability for INJURY which is a very different thing. It makes total sense that if a product doesn't work, you return it to the store and not the manufacturer. But if a product is dangerous I still fail to see how it makes any sense to make retailers liable rather than manufacturers. If you get a batch of improperly made baby formula that makes your baby sick... shouldn't the onus be 100% on the manufacturer? In what universe is a retailer expected to be liable for that? How would they ever know? If Nestle makes a bad batch... what good is it to go around suing Amazon, FreshDirect and 1,000 other local supermarkets? Shouldn't there just be a class-action suit against Nestle?

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#275

Post by ath92 »

crazygringo wrote: post #274

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place. Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility? No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon its…

If the store is liable, the consumer benefits in multiple ways:

- They know who to talk to in case a product is defective. In most cases, it's easy to find out who was the original manufacturer (e.g. when their name is written on the box), but in other cases it can be quite difficult to find out who to go to if your product breaks.

- If the store is liable, it is in their best interest to not sell you products that are likely to break quickly. Alternatively, if the store still decides to sell those products, they will want to take the risk of breakage into account when setting the price. That means the price of the product is a more accurate representation of the value of the product.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#276

Post by Jolter »

crazygringo wrote: post #274

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place. Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility? No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon its…

In many cases, Amazon is the importer.

For stuff that’s shipped straight from China to the consumer, whom do you propose should be liable when a product catches fire? I think that’s the situation in this case - the court has ruled that Amazon is responsible.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#277

Post by gambiting »

marcrosoft wrote: post #254
gambiting wrote: post #146

Wait, so....previously in the US Amazon wasn't responsible for the products it was selling?? Lol, what? So who was responsible then??

Obviously, it should be the manufacturer. You know, the people that made the product??

Uhm, no? Obviously, as a consumer, I couldn't care less about who is the manufacturer - I have no business relationship with them. The person who sold me the item is responsible for it because they are the ones I entered into a purchase contract with.

That's how it works in all of EU already - the seller is responsible for sold items, because....it just makes more sense?

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#278

Post by ptero »

cronix wrote: post #271
kazinator wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> went into a retail store with a faulty product and they were to try fob you off saying you need to go to their supplier/wholesaler/manufacturer Far from unheard of, sadly.

I actually see this from some manufacturers though. A lot say somewhere something like "if you have an issue with this product, DO NOT RETURN TO THE STORE...contact us."

This is a different case -- usually in this, it not that the retailer would not accept the item back; it is the manufacturer trying to prevent you from asking the store to take it back, as the store would then charge the expenses to the manufacturer.

If the manufacturer thinks a customer are missing some parts (for whatever reason, even if they broke them yourself) they will ship extra parts to avoid dealing with the store.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#279

Post by cronix »

bjustin wrote: post #273
cronix wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually see this from some manufacturers though. A lot say somewhere something like "if you have an issue with this product, DO NOT RETURN TO THE STORE...contact us."

The products I see with a plea like this tend to be difficult to set up or use for some reason or other. I always assumed that they have a higher than usual return rate and are trying to reduce that by asking people to call them for support.

I hadn't considered that, but now that you mention it that makes sense. Thanks.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#280

Post by heyitsguay »

crazygringo wrote: post #274

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place. Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility? No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon its…

Better alignment of incentives. The retailer (especially for a huge company like Amazon) has more resources to pursue manufacturers with defective products, they have more information about their supply chain which is useful for issues with international manufacturers, and putting the onus on the retailer encourages the retailer to not allow shoddy or counterfeit products into their marketplace.
Post reply on HN