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

311–320 of 386 posts

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

#311

Post by paxys »

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 a store put a random baby formula from a sketchy Chinese factory on its shelves and it made babies sick, they're going to get demolished by the FDA. "Hey I'm just a retailer" is not at all a defense.

As a customer I can't be expected to know about the intricacies of the supply chain for every product I use, so I establish a relationship with one entity - the retailer.

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

#312

Post by lotsofpulp »

acranox wrote: post #267
concernedctzn wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't newegg get bought a while ago and allows the same knockoffs in their market? I'm honestly not sure where to turn these days

I think Newegg is still okay if you limit to buying stuff from Newegg as the seller. Their marketplace is definitely full of junk.

Newegg commingles inventory so you don’t know whose inventory you will be buying from. See section 4.1:

https://promotions.newegg.com/marketplace/PDF/SBNTermsAndCon...

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

#313

Post by colejohnson66 »

kirillzubovsky wrote: post #296
flavor8 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gu…

The problem with Amazon is counterfeits. Counterfeits go against the idea of a free market. You almost certainly can’t know that the “Apple 5W wall plug charger” is legitimate until you receive it. It says “Apple” on it, but it’s not genuine. Why is that the consumer’s fault?

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

#314

Post by rasz »

slavik81 wrote: post #295
rasz wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Dont know, google found this as a possible interpretation. Courier services usually have this somewhere in ToS, plus customs will confiscate it and you end up on the hook.

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

#315

Post by yomly »

AnssiH wrote: post #287
yomly wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - FBA is actually a really awful attack vector. I hope that they internally are able to track sub-ASIN level inventory, otherwise they have made a fantastic laundering platform.

Yes, they are able to track original sources (by never putting commingled units in the same bin), per seller help pages (and e.g. Amazon comments in this article: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/04/03/1554287401000/Amazon-... ).

Yeah fair. There will be all kinds of audits which would be hard if they couldn't do that

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

#316

Post by colejohnson66 »

mrob wrote: post #197
ss64 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the scammers would just copy the serial numbers, you would have to link every number with a customer name

You don't need to link it to any customer details. The way it usually works is the website records every serial number checked, and warns you if somebody has already checked that serial number. For additional assurance the serial number can also be concealed with tamper-evident packaging, e.g. scratch-off paint.

D’Addario has a “serial number” check webpage for their guitar strings. If you enter an invalid (or previously used) serial number, supposedly (I’ve never had a counterfeit set) they’ll send you a genuine set for free.

Sure, some people will input fake serial numbers to get a free product, but they probably weighed the cost of counterfeit strings affecting brand image (if I don’t know mine are counterfeit, I’ll assume it’s D’Addario’s fault if they’re bad) with the cost of sending a free set of $5 strings.

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

#317

Post by heavyset_go »

fxtentacle wrote: post #117
heavyset_go wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Report this to your state's Attorney General, they usually have a consumer protection division.

They did give in and give me a refund eventually. It's just that I was surprised by their laissez-faire attitude that their topseller was some random no-name factory in China.

Attorney General would still be interested in the fact that you were sold a deep fryer with such a potentially dangerous flaw by Amazon, and the run around they initially gave you.

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

#318

Post by heavyset_go »

yomly wrote: post #152
heavyset_go wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't even report that the reason for your return is that you suspect or know that the item you received is counterfeit during the return process. If Amazon cared about a problem this big, they would collect metrics from customers on it.

When I left Amazon the fastest growing team in the country was the antifraud team and they already had like 2 floors of agents working on it. But I also heard that issues which hadn't occured 3 times in a row were dropped on the floor because of Amazon's scale. This was quite a few years ago now, I can only imagine Amazon is spending more money on the problem now vs then. not to defend Amazon, but maybe the scale of…

> I can only imagine Amazon is spending more money on the problem now vs then.

They might be spending money, but that doesn't mean the money is actually going towards fixing the problem at hand.

When I go to return an item, I can't even select that the reason for my return is that I suspect or know that the item is counterfeited. I have to lie and choose between several somewhat related options like "Inaccurate website description" or "Wrong item was sent" among other things.

To me, it seems like if Amazon were serious about addressing rampant counterfeiting on their platform, they would collect stats from the customers that suffer from Amazon's lack of quality control.

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

#319

Post by donmcronald »

pottertheotter wrote: post #96
technofiend wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly Walmart is the same. So far Target does not allow third party sellers so they're my go to for anything I need to guarantee is legitimate. That or the manufacturer's website if they happen to sell direct. Amazon's heyday has (IMHO) come and gone as a seller of anything but their own brands.

I am saddened that Walmart continues to chase the 3rd party seller gimmick, but they at least allow you to filter results by seller. I always select Walmart.com, ignoring everything else. Also, Target does have 3rd party sellers, but it sounds like they are doing it in a more constrained way. The program is called Target Plus. https://digiday.com/marketing/target-third-party-marketplace...

BestBuy too, at least in Canada. I think BestBuy has done OK financially, but I'm always surprised at how much the "brilliant" executives get paid when their plan is to copy the worst half of Amazon's business model.

IMO BestBuy would have been better off extolling the virtues of having a trustworthy supply chain that doesn't circumvent regulations like Amazon does. Their retail business also means they have a better distribution system then Amazon, at least for now.

I wonder how many people buy the marketplace stuff because I know that when I go to BestBuy it's because I want something immediately or I want something where I don't trust Amazon (chargers, memory cards, etc.).

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

#320

Post by [deleted] »

nogabebop23 wrote: post #216
myself248 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow Home Depot sells a lot of things and none of them appear graymarket or fraudulent. This problem exists because Amazon wanted it to exist. They chose to do business in a way that avoids traditional checks and balances. The scale of the problem is entirely on them.

What about Walmart? They have a big online presence and sell a lot of 3rd party - anyone know what their counterfeit situation looks like? I've only ever bought diapers from them and if they were fakes it seems oily rags (or whatever is in the fakes ones) absorb as well as the real deal...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN