31–40 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t expect consumers to track down fake Ball lids and Apple chargers. I expect Ball and Apple to do that.
In civilized countries you have consumer watchdogs that deal with fraud and unsafe products so the consumer doesn't have to. The point of the law isn't to catch criminals, it's to prevent crime.
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…
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…
I feel like the offloaded liability is just a technicality and is a poor lack of incentive for Amazon to do anything. Sure, the product was sold by a non-Amazon third party, but from the user perspective the defective product was purchased on Amazon. The company can deflect blame to the marketplace sellers all they want, but it's still Amazon's reputation that receives the most lasting damage.
I've been disentangling my purchasing habits from Amazon, but I don't know too many other people who are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the offloaded liability is just a technicality and is a poor lack of incentive for Amazon to do anything. Sure, the product was sold by a non-Amazon third party, but from the user perspective the defective product was purchased on Amazon. The company can deflect blame to the marketplace sellers all they want, but it's still Amazon's reputation that receives the most lasting damage.
I am wondering if Amazon is immune to reputational damage though. People have been complaining about counterfeit and defective products from Amazon for about 5 years now, and it doesn't seem to have had significant effect on market share. I've been disentangling my purchasing habits from Amazon, but I don't know too many other people who are.
See Walmart for an example of this. They force manufacturers of otherwise decent stuff to make lower quality versions of products to sell only at Walmart, just to lower the end price.
Considering that Walmart is one of the largest companies in the world, this seems to be a winning tactic.
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.
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…
> Do you really expect the consumer to try to track down some person via their address Product manufacturers track these unauthorized sellers and do pretty deep investigations into who they are to stop counterfeit / unauthorized distribution. Source: I worked on software that tracked pricing and unauthorized sellers for 4 years.
Source: I actively manage about 30 different vendor/seller accounts as a consultant. Tracking sellers is a fools errand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
-- "let me do anything I want, I want to succeed and be huge!"
-- "make sure I can stop anyone that wants to do the same thing, I want to be the only one to succeed and be huge!"
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…
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25459434
Once again, the good guys (customers and honest sellers) lose out while the bad guys win, with no repercussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you really expect the consumer to try to track down some person via their address Product manufacturers track these unauthorized sellers and do pretty deep investigations into who they are to stop counterfeit / unauthorized distribution. Source: I worked on software that tracked pricing and unauthorized sellers for 4 years.
Very FEW product manufacturers track these unauthorized sellers. Amazon should require the store name to MATCH the llc/corp name and they should require a US registered agent to be publicly displayed as well. Source: I actively manage about 30 different vendor/seller accounts as a consultant. Tracking sellers is a fools errand.
You'll often see sites like Amazon match the pricing of a smaller unauthorized seller. Amazon's response to a MAP enforcement email in that case is when you stop the other guy, we will go back to MAP. So it is very important to stay on top of those sellers.