Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 113 posts

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#21

Post by devereaux »

aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #14
mikeash wrote: post #8

Sounds like there needs to be a “know your merchant” law. It makes sense to me that Amazon might not be liable, but it makes no sense at all that people can’t get in touch with the actual seller.

It makes zero sense to me that Amazon might be liable.

counterfeit items like SD cards dominate on Amazon. I tried reporting fake electronic equipment - nothing happened, except I seldom buy anything on Amazon anymore.

Amazon should at least be liable for willingly selling items that do not match the description (if they tell me it's a Sandisk SD, I buy it because I believe it is!)

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#22

Post by sk5t »

asfasgasg wrote: post #10
ctrl-j wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your eyes, what would be the mechanism for a US citizen to sue a manufacturer who has no presence outside of China other than the Amazon marketplace?

I could imagine maybe a law requiring foreign companies to obtain a bond when selling consumer goods, if they don't have substantial presence in the U.S. This bond would be a surety that consumers could recover damages in the case of negligence, at least up to a certain amount. I don't see the argument for requiring Amazon to perform that service, though.

Suppose the foreign entity decided to flout that law, and never did acquire a bond, or reported a nonexistent bond. Would it be Amazon's responsibility to detect this situation, and what remedy would be available to the customer regardless?

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#23

Post by takeda »

mikestew wrote: post #4

I’ll be curious to see what happens when Amazon sells a fake Apple iPhone charger, which subsequently burns a house down. The difference here is that Amazon advertised it as Apple brand. Or is that going to be on the shoulders of the wholesaler^W”seller”, too?

I would assume that all iPhone chargers on Amazon are fake. Would Apple be ok selling their products through Amazon?

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#25

Post by disposablename »

master-litty wrote: post #2

Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.

Amazon takes your money, they are responsible for the shit they receive.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#26

Post by guelo »

astura wrote: post #18
guelo wrote: post #16

I'm so done with Amazon, it's all shady Chinese companies selling counterfeits and knockoffs. I was blown away when I bought fake Dove soap the other day in perfect looking packaging. It's impossible to trust anything on there.

What gave it away that the soap was a knockoff? I can't say I'd know how to identify counterfeit soap other than maybe extremely low quality packaging.

I happened to have the same soap bought at a Walgreens to compare it with. It smelled much worse, an unknown chemically smell, and it was about 30 percent smaller, though it still had the characteristic Dove oval shape.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#27

Post by takeda »

vinceguidry wrote: post #11

This is just going to make me more and more wary of buying through Amazon. Good companies aren't afraid of accountability.

I learned that a friend was (maybe still is) selling vitamins and probiotics through Amazon. I wasn't able to learn who was producing it only knew that it was made in US and most likey a neighbor.

He also was selling vitamin K, when asked my doctor about she said she would recommend not to take it, and the daily dose suggested is typically prescribed and usually taken one time.

That seriously made me cautious about it, literally anyone can start selling on Amazon and there is not easy way to figure out where things come from.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#28

Post by scarface74 »

sk5t wrote: post #22
asfasgasg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could imagine maybe a law requiring foreign companies to obtain a bond when selling consumer goods, if they don't have substantial presence in the U.S. This bond would be a surety that consumers could recover damages in the case of negligence, at least up to a certain amount. I don't see the argument for requiring Amazon to perform that service, though.

Suppose the foreign entity decided to flout that law, and never did acquire a bond, or reported a nonexistent bond. Would it be Amazon's responsibility to detect this situation, and what remedy would be available to the customer regardless?

It should be a registered bond with a trusted source. You wouldn't trust escrow funds that weren't held by a trustworthy party if you were involved in real estate.

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#29

Post by c2h5oh »

buckminster wrote: post #9
master-litty wrote: post #2

Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.

The consumer has no contract with the manufacturer. It is the vendor's responsibility. Of course, the vendor can sue the manufacturer but that's a separate thing. However, Amazon is successfully arguing that they are not the vendor. The vendor is a third party using Amazon's platform. Edit: that said, I think this needs to change.

Following the same logic eBay would be liable for anything anyone sells on it. And Etsy too.

Expanding even further next in the line would be Craigslist, with the defense hinging on argument they don't facilitate payments like etsy, amazon or ebay.

So where do we draw the line?

Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold

#30

Post by Klathmon »

devereaux wrote: post #21
aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes zero sense to me that Amazon might be liable.

counterfeit items like SD cards dominate on Amazon. I tried reporting fake electronic equipment - nothing happened, except I seldom buy anything on Amazon anymore. Amazon should at least be liable for willingly selling items that do not match the description (if they tell me it's a Sandisk SD, I buy it because I believe it is!)

I'm surprised SanDisk and other major brands that are getting their names dragged through the mud aren't doing something about it.
Post reply on HN