Live data from Hacker News

Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

arstechnica.com

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#21

This whole legislation is a huge waste of time as a way to fight fraud and fake products. Do you really expect the consumer to try to track down some person via their address (which may be a PO Box) and try to sue them, only to have them say their merchandise was actually mixed with others and so they are not liable? The much better version is to make Amazon fully liable for everything they sell, even third party mer…

[deleted]

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#22

An important and related fact, addressed in the article, is that Amazon currently escapes consumer product liability laws because they are neither seller nor manufacturer. But they also cannot tell you with any degree of precision who the seller or manufacturer is. There is a public interest in making /someone/ liable for defective products, as it provides a incentive for sellers to do due diligence on what they sell…

At least in California they are liable in tort: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/another-court-gets-hove...

> California’s Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) determined that Amazon could be held strictly liable for injuries a consumer suffered from a defective hoverboard she bought from the retailer, even though Amazon neither manufactured nor sold the product.

> The plaintiff in this latest case, Kisha Loomis, bought a hoverboard through the Amazon marketplace. The Amazon marketplace carries both products sold by Amazon and by third parties. In this case, the hoverboard was sold by a Chinese company called SMILETO.

> The Court of Appeal... [held] that a party who has control over and is integral to the chain of commerce, and receives a financial benefit from it, is strictly liable for injury caused by a product’s defects.

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#23
post #22

An important and related fact, addressed in the article, is that Amazon currently escapes consumer product liability laws because they are neither seller nor manufacturer. But they also cannot tell you with any degree of precision who the seller or manufacturer is. There is a public interest in making /someone/ liable for defective products, as it provides a incentive for sellers to do due diligence on what they sell…

At least in California they are liable in tort: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/another-court-gets-hove... > California’s Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) determined that Amazon could be held strictly liable for injuries a consumer suffered from a defective hoverboard she bought from the retailer, even though Amazon neither manufactured nor sold the product. > The plaintiff in this latest case, Kisha…

Oh, that's important, and new. Here's the actual decision in Loomis vs. Amazon.[1] Amazon has been fighting that case since 2016, and last April, they lost at the appellate level in California. But the plaintiff hasn't won damages yet; the case will now be sent back to the LA Superior Court where discovery will continue; a trial date is expected to be set in 2022.

So, in California, you can now make product liability claims against Amazon, despite their terms and conditions.

[1] https://cases.justia.com/static/pdf-js/web/?file=/california...

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#24
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason people on HN have hate for the post office is they are influenced by capitalists who want another industry to “disrupt.” American oligarchs have been declaring war on public services since the New Deal, and over time American workers have sadly been propagandized to buy into it. As a result, the U.S. Post Office is not what it used to be (it used to offer banking services!!!) but it’s still one of the…

Someone on HN once mentioned that anti-USPO plays are likely aimed at "freeing up" all the prime real estate the USPO owns in cities all over the country for private buyers, which was the thing that finally made some people and groups' evident hate and ill-wishing for the post office make sense to me. I'm sure killing some competition is also a factor for certain interests, but that was never enough, I thought, to ex…

The real estate effort makes sense because it gives an objective to organize around. In the case I made, I should probably elaborate. I don’t think there are many groups of people wanting to take over mail delivery for profit, or that those groups are terribly committed. I think it more often serves as an ideological punching bag that represents public services in general. The USPS is often cited in arguments for why public healthcare supposedly can never work, for example, despite it’s success in most developed nations. This depends on attacking public services in general. Currently, maintaining this sentiment for the private sector against the public sector is important to the effort to withhold IP of the coronavirus vaccine from the third world. IP laws are often complained about by HN readers, but IP itself is not. This conflict between regulation and anarchy is an eternal contradiction in the entrepreneurial pursuit, but public services which serve working people equally are ideologically beyond the pale, enemies of the entrepreneurial spirit.

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#25

I recently purchased a set of full ear headphones with boom microphone from Amazon. From a 'five star' reviewed product and vendor. It came with a printed piece of paper in the box from the vendor offering a $15 gift card if I left a five star review for the product and then sent a screenshot to the company. Such shady behavior. The headphones are only average quality.

this has been going on for years. amazon benefits, so they allow the practice.

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#26

I recently purchased a set of full ear headphones with boom microphone from Amazon. From a 'five star' reviewed product and vendor. It came with a printed piece of paper in the box from the vendor offering a $15 gift card if I left a five star review for the product and then sent a screenshot to the company. Such shady behavior. The headphones are only average quality.

I got one of those once, and wrote a review saying that this seller is paying for 5 star reviews and even though the product seemed fine, be wary of 5 star reviews. Amazon removed my review as going against the terms of service.

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#27
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've never heard of competitive addressing, then. Instead of PO BOX 1234, Anytown, ST USA you use Street Address of Post Office, Unit # PO BOX Number, Anytown ST USA. In addition to giving you a "real" street address, it works for any services unable to otherwise deliver to a PO BOX like UPS, Fedex or DHL, because as long as they deliver during business hours, the post office will sign for your package. I use th…

The only reason people on HN have hate for the post office is they are influenced by capitalists who want another industry to “disrupt.” American oligarchs have been declaring war on public services since the New Deal, and over time American workers have sadly been propagandized to buy into it. As a result, the U.S. Post Office is not what it used to be (it used to offer banking services!!!) but it’s still one of the…

Don't forget the people trying to destroy it so they can prevent postal voting in certain counties.

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#28

An important and related fact, addressed in the article, is that Amazon currently escapes consumer product liability laws because they are neither seller nor manufacturer. But they also cannot tell you with any degree of precision who the seller or manufacturer is. There is a public interest in making /someone/ liable for defective products, as it provides a incentive for sellers to do due diligence on what they sell…

So basically, Amazon is a large parking lot where they're charging a booth fee for the largest grey farmers' market in existence.

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#29

I recently purchased a set of full ear headphones with boom microphone from Amazon. From a 'five star' reviewed product and vendor. It came with a printed piece of paper in the box from the vendor offering a $15 gift card if I left a five star review for the product and then sent a screenshot to the company. Such shady behavior. The headphones are only average quality.

As many have already mentioned in prior discussions, 5-star reviews are meaningless and Amazon does not care.

Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it

#30

I recently purchased a set of full ear headphones with boom microphone from Amazon. From a 'five star' reviewed product and vendor. It came with a printed piece of paper in the box from the vendor offering a $15 gift card if I left a five star review for the product and then sent a screenshot to the company. Such shady behavior. The headphones are only average quality.

I had a similar experience in April. I reported the seller to Amazon, including lots of evidence (links to reviews by other buyers complaining about the same thing, etc.) They assured me that they would take care of it, but the product is still available and it seems that nothing has changed.
Post reply on HN