Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by AnssiH » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

dingo454 wrote: post #242

xxs wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Note that when ordering outside the country you still have to pay for the shipping fee of the return yourself _to_ the amazon store of origin you selecte That is false - I do order outside and it costs around 10 + 10euro/kg for around 7-10days delivery (express within 2-3days is around double). When I returned anything (3x times) - amazon paid back the shipping costs, BOTH my own sending and the bill sending back to…

What do you mean by "BOTH my own sending and the bill sending back to them? When did this happen, and from where? My last cross-country return was in 2017 for a lens (sold and shipped from amazon) and I had to pay for the shipping myself to amazon.fr from italy. Didn't get a refund for the shipping cost, although the replacement arrived for free. Note that the lens was originally shipped to france. I was substituting…

Note that you have to specifically ask customer service for the return shipping refund afterwards, it is not automatic if you self-paid the shipping (or they might only provide a small allowance automatically which is usually not enough for international shipping).

I've gotten my international return shipping always refunded when returning to amazon.de, amazon.it and amazon.fr (when the item was faulty or the item was otherwise eligible for free returns).

Here's the relevant amazon.de help page: https://www.amazon.de/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G...

> If your item was eligible for free return but you paid a delivery fee, we'll issue a refund for the delivery charges.

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

#292

Post by rorykoehler » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #259

rorykoehler wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the scale is too big for Amazon to handle then Amazons business model has failed and they should be shut down until they get a handle on it. I don’t understand why common sense and the law went out the window just because we changed the medium?

Because if you were trying to make a case to Congress to get legislation passed that would them down you wouldn’t get past “even with the fraud Amazon is still delivering a huge amount of value to consumers because of their scale and we don’t want to disrupt that.” Like you will get nowhere arguing that billion dollar US controlled giants should get shut down or broken up unless it’s a last resort.

They could shut out all 3rd party sellers until they are verified. Amazon would still be making truck loads of money from Amazon basics etc. Most customers might not even notice any change when buying.

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

#293

Post by kirillzubovsky » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

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.

Actually, on the contrary, imagine you went to Safeway, and they sold you a carton of juice. You came home, and found out the juice was poisoned.

According to this ruling, Safeway, the delivery company, the guy who moved the boxes, and everyone in between you and the manufacturer, are all at fault.

Isn't that plain crazy? Safeway has no control over the juice in the box, except for being able to follow their own guidelines on refrigeration, and check the expire date.

Short of manufacturing their own laptops, how is Amazon to ensure those batteries won't malfunction. How is your corner 7/11 able to ensure that your Gatorade does't have piss in it. How is your gas station able to ensure that those M&Ms you bough don't have nails in them?

If you make stores liable for the products they sell, it removes all the incentive to make good products. Manufacturers can ship anything, who cares, the stores are at fault!

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

#294

Post by Ekaros » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #277

marcrosoft wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And if seller fails, the official importer is often responsible.

Ofc, in some cases contacting manufacturer directly is a decent option.

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

#295

Post by slavik81 » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

rasz wrote: post #269

an_opabinia wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Amazon systemically refuses refunds for people who try to return counterfeit goods? It definitely doesn’t care if you don’t even notice. But they do the returns if you ask. The former is what needs to change.

return? you mean knowingly transport illegal goods across state and international borders? 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (1994)) (indicating that shipping counterfeit merchandise across state lines “may violate laws prohibiting the interstate transportation of stolen property”

Could you clarify? Looking at the rules here, none of them would seem to apply. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2314

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

#296

Post by kirillzubovsky » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

flavor8 wrote: post #169

xoxoy wrote: post #60

Shopping on Amazon has become unbearable for like 95% of categories these days. The experience is like rummaging through some shady tourist market with a dozen stall owners trying to scam you. The pricing is all whack with lots of counterfeits that have gamed the ranking and review systems. It’s just not worth trying to filter and find things that are actually competitively priced and sold directly by Amazon. Have no…

Here's an example for anybody who doubts this; go search for: a) an Oximeter b) a medical thermometer c) a blood pressure cuff These are all fairly relevant devices. Spend 10 minutes really researching the categories, and actually read the reviews (in particular the 5* and the 1* reviews). Can you find a combination fo devices that you're actually confident buying? It shouldn't be this hard.

Oh the other hand, you can also find a "knock off" device that costs 1/4 of the original price and works just as well. It's manufactured in the same factory as the original, but cuts corners and doesn't have fancy packaging, or anything fancy really.

The argument is that in a free market a consumer should have a choice. You want a great branded product, go with a known brand. You want to save money, try the little guy, with all the caveats that come with it.

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

#297

Post by jarym » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

kirillzubovsky wrote: post #293

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.

Actually, on the contrary, imagine you went to Safeway, and they sold you a carton of juice. You came home, and found out the juice was poisoned. According to this ruling, Safeway, the delivery company, the guy who moved the boxes, and everyone in between you and the manufacturer, are all at fault. Isn't that plain crazy? Safeway has no control over the juice in the box, except for being able to follow their own guid…

Retailers will keep Product Liability Insurance and make sure their suppliers have the same for this very reason. When a claim arises there are 2 perspectives:

1. The customer only has to deal with the place they bought from. 2. Every merchant up the chain will have to go through their liability insurance to figure out who pays out.

Consumer protection laws are this way for a reason and when they're respected they work really well.

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

#298

Post by ukulele » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

kirillzubovsky wrote: post #293

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.

Actually, on the contrary, imagine you went to Safeway, and they sold you a carton of juice. You came home, and found out the juice was poisoned. According to this ruling, Safeway, the delivery company, the guy who moved the boxes, and everyone in between you and the manufacturer, are all at fault. Isn't that plain crazy? Safeway has no control over the juice in the box, except for being able to follow their own guid…

Amazon (and all the others you've mentioned) have the ability to choose their suppliers. There isn't piss in the Gatorade nor nails in the M&Ms because this is a solved problem: make companies liable for their supply chains.

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

#299

Post by thecreamedcorn » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #166

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and therefore the retailer is incentivised not to sell junk in the first place. The problem with being an "everything store" is that everything also includes an overwhelming majority of crap, looking at you crappy "genuine sony" camera batteries that held about 10 minutes of charge, fulfilled by amazon.

Yeah, no, you got lucky with that - I found out Amazon can't be trusted with high-ticket items by getting a $1200 lens that turned out to be gray market. Works fine, but I better hope I never need warranty service. Amazon can't be trusted with high-ticket items, including but not limited to camera equipment. Go to B&H or Adorama, or Newegg or Micro Center for high-ticket computer parts (cf. the recent spate of GPU sc…

I bought a GPU off Amazon not too long ago. It had driver problems and they let me return it no questions asked, full refund and they covered shipping cost. I've never heard of anyone having issues with Amazon returns, and I've certainly never had issues with it myself.

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

#300

Post by blaines » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

kirillzubovsky wrote: post #293

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.

Actually, on the contrary, imagine you went to Safeway, and they sold you a carton of juice. You came home, and found out the juice was poisoned. According to this ruling, Safeway, the delivery company, the guy who moved the boxes, and everyone in between you and the manufacturer, are all at fault. Isn't that plain crazy? Safeway has no control over the juice in the box, except for being able to follow their own guid…

That's pretty much the point of chain-of-custody systems, because everyone in that supply chain is involved in ensuring that food is safe. Chain of custody systems help identify the error which lead to an incident, and all parties are held accountable for their part in that process. For example:

- The store refrigerators may have lost power. Those products are now waste or potentially hazardous and must be tossed. (Otherwise risky, temperature can be tracked, but in a loss of power scenario is more difficult)

- The delivery truck broke down. Perhaps the temperature in the trailer went above acceptable food safety thresholds.

- The packaging company potentially stored a product outside of the coolers, leading to a food safety hazard.

etc.