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

371–380 of 386 posts

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

#371

Post by marcrosoft »

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?

Ok, and if you sell or even give away your used item to me and I deem it harms me in some way? When does the litigation pain chain stop?

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

#373

Post by EricE »

throwanem wrote: post #253
ikeboy wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every retailer you mentioned deals in grey market products. Here's B&H proudly admitting to it: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp

B&H is honest about it. The problem I have with Amazon is that they aren't . Based on price and representation, the lens I bought was indistinguishable from a US-market unit right up until I took it out of the box and checked the serial number. To be clear, I suspect error and not malfeasance on Amazon's part. But I don't really care which it is, either.

Yup - B&H gives you the choice of whether you want to trade off price for potential issues down the road.

With Amazon you may get zonked and have no way of knowing until after the fact. And seeing the other comments about Newegg, that's disappointing too. Luckily I live near more than a few Microcenters - but finding reliable, trustworthy electronics retailers is becoming harder and harder.

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

#374

Post by efreak »

siruncledrew wrote: post #48

Long-term, it would be good business sense for Amazon to address the counterfeit issue to remove the bad actors from their platform to stay in good standing with consumers so people continue to use their platform and purchase items without worry about getting scammed. Short-term, at least one idea to fix this is to implement more stringent checks/QA with their FBA policies. Do more stringent verification of imported…

> Simply adding "Shipped by: X, Sold by: X" text on the product page doesn't really help.

Amazon doesn't even do this, though.

Recently I was helping someone look for memory on Amazon. We couldn't tell the difference between two different listings for crucial ram, both with the same model, speed, size, etc. Figuring out who the seller was can be difficult; the place that used to say the store name simply had a link to Amazon's products manufactured by Crucial. We eventually noticed that in the comparison at the bottom it says who's selling the product you're looking at; searching the page for this store name found no other instances of it.

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

#375

Post by gambiting »

marcrosoft wrote: post #371
gambiting wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ok, and if you sell or even give away your used item to me and I deem it harms me in some way? When does the litigation pain chain stop?

The legislation treats used items differently. Unless the seller purposefully hid something from you then you accept used items as-is with no further responsibility accepted by the seller. So the chain ends on the first sale on a new item. There are exceptions to this for certain items(say cars). But if you buy a second hand phone and it explodes a month later then whoever sold you the item is not responsible.

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

#376

Post by donmcronald »

crazygringo wrote: post #345
donmcronald wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the supply chain and knowing your supplier plays an extremely important role in making sure products are legitimate and conform to all regulations. A big problem with Amazon is that you can end up with counterfeit products or products that have fake safety certifications stamped on them and you'll never nail down the culprits that orchestrated it. It'll be a transient company in China that's gone by the time anyo…

Thanks for explaining, but I still don't see the logic here. First of all, how is a retailer supposed to vet their suppliers? They don't have the expertise or time to audit the supplier's own supply chains. Second, if the (non-counterfeit) manufacturer puts out a shoddy batch, it doesn't matter which suppliers it goes through. Why should the store be responsible for the shoddy product when it could have come through…

I guess the way I see it is that most manufacturers are foreign rather than domestic, so that leaves you with making the importer liable for bad products. I think it’s a lot easier to implement that part of the supply chain with a bunch of zero asset, disposable companies, so it doesn’t really leave anyone that’s going to actually assume liability.

The retailer relies on the value of their brand and often have significant domestic assets. So by making the retailer liable you’re pinning down someone who can’t just fold their company and walk away.

And I don’t agree the retailer isn’t capable of vetting their supply chain. I’ll agree it’s not easy, but they’re in the best position to do it because they have a lot of leverage over their direct suppliers.

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

#377

Post by donmcronald »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #337
donmcronald wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wirecutter is an affiliate marketer. If they reviewed 15 pieces of shit they'd recommend a top 3 to buy based on taste. Almost all of the review sites are like that now. Look up the story of Casper and Sleepopolis. Today's review sites are predominantly filled with advertising disguised as reviews.

They're good enough. To me the alternative is Reddit or online reviews on the seller website which are even more unreliable. And the alternative to that is to spend countless hours researching things myself. Is Consumer Reports any good?

I’ve never used consumer reports. Reddit can be really good if you find the niche communities. It’s basically impossible to research yourself these days because nothing has decent specs.

Sites like Wirecutter aren’t completely useless because they give a relatively decent overview. It’s just worth being aware most review sites border on being advertising, so they won’t tell you if a whole product category is trash.

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

#378

Post by virtue3 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #237
virtue3 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try buying a pair of authntic raybans. It's not exactly easy :/

I recommend saving time and energy and go to ray-ban.com

but, absolutely, and most definitely, not money. :(

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

#379

Post by throwanem »

EricE wrote: post #373
throwanem wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

B&H is honest about it. The problem I have with Amazon is that they aren't . Based on price and representation, the lens I bought was indistinguishable from a US-market unit right up until I took it out of the box and checked the serial number. To be clear, I suspect error and not malfeasance on Amazon's part. But I don't really care which it is, either.

Yup - B&H gives you the choice of whether you want to trade off price for potential issues down the road. With Amazon you may get zonked and have no way of knowing until after the fact. And seeing the other comments about Newegg, that's disappointing too. Luckily I live near more than a few Microcenters - but finding reliable, trustworthy electronics retailers is becoming harder and harder.

That's honestly most of the reason I still go to the store, and all of why I'll go out of my way to buy there even for stuff I could probably get elsewhere for a little less.

Micro Center is the last of the old breed of computer stores, where you could expect to go and find a strong product selection and generally knowledgeable people - I can't remember the last time I've gone anywhere else and found the sales staff able to usefully consult and advise on complex questions; by contrast, I've learned through experience that I can go into my local Micro Center with nothing but a problem description and come out with a solution that will work.

I want that to go on being the case for a long time; after all, I'm not getting any younger nor are days getting any longer, and having kids around who are, by all I can tell, well paid and fairly treated precisely to develop and apply knowledge I don't have the time or honestly the desire to obtain for myself - that's something I'm not just willing, but happy, to support.

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

#380

Post by waldoh »

djsumdog wrote: post #206
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…

I wouldn't know. I stopped shopping on Amazon in 2016. It really irks me when I see a product I'm interested in and only see it on Amazon! I'll often pay the $10~$15 more to buy it straight from the manufacturers website to avoid Amazon (and a lot of times, it's cheaper outside of Amazon). I miss the days of PriceScan/PriceWatch and other comparison sites. Recently I bought some new camera parts. I noted the price of…

Sorry but this line

> (and a lot of times, it's cheaper outside of Amazon).

is not true. Amazon does not let sellers list products on amazon for a higher price than than what they list on the sellers website. It's 100% against TOS and they will shut down your listing if it's your first offense and will permaban you from selling if you continue to do so.

Post reply on HN