Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by judge2020 » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #49

judge2020 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> eBay does not use a consolidated product listing, much more like a bulletin board each sellers products being sold under it's own URL. Try searching for a product on ebay right now and it's the exact same experience as Amazon. Both Amazon and Ebay's algorithms determine which usb drives show up first when searching for "usb stick", which is where 99% of their commerce is coming from.

The eBay list will have a rating for the seller, full detailed customer feedback the seller received for the previous 90 days including the listing. It will also have verbatim customer feedback going back 12 months. This is the top result of my search for "usb stick" -- a seller with 28k transactions and 100% positive feedback. https://www.ebay.com/itm/SanDisk-Cruzer-Blade-Flash-Drive-8G...

That doesn't contradict my point. Both have a generic search list that combines multiple sellers onto one page, making the OP's statement "eBay does not use a consolidated product listing" incorrect.

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

#302

Post by hinkley » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

Jolter wrote: post #276

crazygringo wrote: post #274

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place. Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility? No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon its…

In many cases, Amazon is the importer. For stuff that’s shipped straight from China to the consumer, whom do you propose should be liable when a product catches fire? I think that’s the situation in this case - the court has ruled that Amazon is responsible.

Effectively Amazon is becoming the seller and the wholesaler, and keeping 75% of what a wholesaler used to make, While undercutting retailers, right?

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

#303

Post by manmal » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #274

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place. Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility? No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon its…

If Amazon chooses to let counterfeiters etc sell on their website, why should they not be held accountable for that? Maybe they will finally show interest in what the heck they are showcasing on their own platform.

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

#304

Post by slowmovintarget » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #141

ashtonkem wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically, the responsibility for chasing down the manufacturer for a refund is shifted onto the retailer, not the consumer.

Yes, and therefore the retailer is incentivised not to sell junk in the first place. The problem with being an "everything store" is that everything also includes an overwhelming majority of crap, looking at you crappy "genuine sony" camera batteries that held about 10 minutes of charge, fulfilled by amazon.

There's no escaping Sturgeon's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

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

#305

Post by richwater » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

jdashg wrote: post #272

ChuckMcM wrote: post #92

Wow, here is the actual decision : https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2020-d07... It definitely looks like Amazon is going to have to accept strict liability in California. That will make it interesting to see what they do. Do they leave California? (their biggest US market) or do they clean up their FBA act? I'm hoping for the latter, as the justices argue in the decision that is exactly the intent…

California's one of the top economies in the world, they aren't leaving. California has a ton of power. Do auto makers even make "49 state" cars anymore?

They have a top economy despite all the nonsense they pull, not because of it.

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

#306

Post by goblin89 » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

_jas wrote: post #220

baybal2 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think most people here have any idea 3P/FBA selling works. It takes a lot of work to get listed and move into new categories, and you can be removed very quickly for the slightest of reasons. This goes to show the scale of the problem in policing logistics at this scale (not to say that Amazon shouldn't be responsible for it). I am not new to 3P/FBA myself. I ran a store in my college days 2010-2012, and kn…

Sorry, I'm a bit naive in this area. How easy is it really for a Chinese vendor set up a shell company and build a fly-by-night business to compete with a legitimate seller who has to spend a considerable amount of money? Especially if they are only able to snipe a few sales away from the legitimate company before getting deleted?

As far as I understand, on Amazon you don’t have to compete with legitimate sellers anymore: many of them are simply gone.

If you are a legitimate seller, you want to be able to communicate with store representative. You want to be able to trust that the store wouldn’t suddenly pull the rug from under you without human contact. You don’t want your products to be displayed alongside fakes. It may be considered wiser not to engage with a store that lacks all of that.

Meanwhile, for a fly-by-night shady seller risk and uncertainty is par for the course, so they would remain and scout for new ways to game the system.

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

#307

Post by brudgers » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #301

brudgers wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The eBay list will have a rating for the seller, full detailed customer feedback the seller received for the previous 90 days including the listing. It will also have verbatim customer feedback going back 12 months. This is the top result of my search for "usb stick" -- a seller with 28k transactions and 100% positive feedback. https://www.ebay.com/itm/SanDisk-Cruzer-Blade-Flash-Drive-8G...

That doesn't contradict my point. Both have a generic search list that combines multiple sellers onto one page, making the OP's statement "eBay does not use a consolidated product listing" incorrect.

The search list on eBay provides provenance. The buyer can choose among suppliers as well as products. The eBay list is specific, not generic.

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

#308

Post by grawprog » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

radicality wrote: post #290

grawprog wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's typical with most brick and mortar stores to be refused a return. I've never been refused a return on any product from any brick and mortar store store unless it was for something I was explicitly told was final sale or it was my own fault by losing the receipt or destroying the packaging or something. I even returned a $500 laptop to a Futureshop the day after getting it after dropping it off my lap onto the c…

So you damaged the item from your own carelessness and then returned it next day to get a new one? Why did they accept it? Mistakes happen, but why should the store be liable for this? Further, is this not fraud? This is reminding me of my friend who because of the work-from-home orders wanted a standing desk. He buys one, uses it everyday and then returns it a day before the last return day. He’s on his 5th one now.…

No, it was part of their return policy. I explained exactly what happened. The store explained they would contact Toshiba, return it for repair and resell it as refurbished when it was returned. The repairs and damage was covered by Toshiba as far as the store explained to me.

It's just the store as the seller was taking on the responsibility for sealing with this as part of selling Toshiba products and the store and Toshiba are clearly alright with this arrangement.

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

#309

Post by HlessClaudesman » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

slowmovintarget wrote: post #304

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and therefore the retailer is incentivised not to sell junk in the first place. The problem with being an "everything store" is that everything also includes an overwhelming majority of crap, looking at you crappy "genuine sony" camera batteries that held about 10 minutes of charge, fulfilled by amazon.

There's no escaping Sturgeon's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

Hey thanks for that. I had no idea that this insight, obvious to any low level curmudgeon, had been codified into a law.

Now kindly stop playing your music so loud and get off my lawn.

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

#310

Post by R0b0t1 » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #282

R0b0t1 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's typical with most brick and mortar stores to be refused a return. I'm unsure if they are simply never challenged on this or intentionally mislead their customers while knowing the law. Everyone should know you never have to do an RMA if you don't want to and it's only been 30-90 days.

>It's typical with most brick and mortar stores to be refused a return. I've never been refused a return on any product from any brick and mortar store store unless it was for something I was explicitly told was final sale or it was my own fault by losing the receipt or destroying the packaging or something. I even returned a $500 laptop to a Futureshop the day after getting it after dropping it off my lap onto the c…

What I am trying to say is most of the time there is no such thing as final sale. E.g. a hobby store near me says final sale on electronic parts. As I am aware this is not allowed, they actually have to prove the customer broke the part to refuse the return. This is pretty hard to do.

They also can't charge restocking fees or refuse the return if you've destroyed the packaging. Losing the receipt possibly, but they need to be tracking sales as well and I think you would win that.