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…
Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
21–30 of 85 posts
Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
#22An 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…
> 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
#23An 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…
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
#24Earlier 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…
Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
#25I 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.
Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
#26I 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.
Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
#27Earlier 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…
Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
#28An 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…
Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
#29I 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.
Re: Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
#30I 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.