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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

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

#51

Post by brendoelfrendo »

sneak wrote: post #47
skak wrote: 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…

Replace "disrupt" with "replace with an improved version" and you have accurately characterized my view. The USPS does an absolutely terrible job, by objective measure. Many of their locations are significantly understaffed, with 30-60 minute waits for basic services (for paying customers!). Rude, unhelpful employees are the norm. Why should package and letter delivery be a public service? Their approach is not worki…

With the exception of wait times for in-person service, I don't really get the impression that the USPS does a worse job than any other delivery service. Mail arrives consistently, on time, and at competitive prices.

> Why should package and letter delivery be a public service?

Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.

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

#52

Post by oblio »

reportingsjr wrote: post #34
aidenn0 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think the majority of people care about quality. I think most focus mainly on price. 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.

People only care about quality for a very few select goods in their lives. Most of them are of hedonistic nature and/or are publicly visible so are a status symbol.

Everything else will be as cheap as can be bought (so probably 90% of purchases).

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

#53

Post by wahern »

jimmaswell wrote: post #49
wahern wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ever since the 1960s, actually. In fact, California was the first state[1] to adopt strict product liability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability#Landmark_leg... Most U.S. states and many other countries have since adopted California's regime. So California courts extending their common law strict product liability doctrine to encompass Amazon's marketplace is quite a noteworthy precedent. [1] An…

Sounds like a big risk reselling anything with any potential to go wrong in California, or at least insurance premiums will be very high.

Not just in California, but in most of the U.S. and E.U.

But if you weren't yourself negligent, you can recover your losses from an upstream supplier. In practice it's manufacturers or importers who bear most of the insurance cost.

The whole point of the doctrine is that someone injured by a faulty product shouldn't have to hunt down the negligent party, who may have chosen to sell through a byzantine supply chain in order to protect themselves. Similarly, a downstream seller shouldn't be free to benefit from such an arrangement, either. IOW, retailers and other sellers should (and because of strict product liability do) have some responsibility to choose their suppliers wisely.

Note that at least conceptually strict liability lessens the need for centralized product regulation. By making recovery for actual damages more efficient, there's less need for government to try to prevent negligence beforehand. And at least in theory that makes it easier for industry to innovate--to take calculated risks. Alas, the U.S. doesn't embrace this potential as well as it could.

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

#54

Post by throwawayboise »

jimmaswell wrote: post #49
wahern wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ever since the 1960s, actually. In fact, California was the first state[1] to adopt strict product liability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability#Landmark_leg... Most U.S. states and many other countries have since adopted California's regime. So California courts extending their common law strict product liability doctrine to encompass Amazon's marketplace is quite a noteworthy precedent. [1] An…

Sounds like a big risk reselling anything with any potential to go wrong in California, or at least insurance premiums will be very high.

They would likely just need to show "reasonable and prudent" attention to what they are selling. Electrical appliances UL listed, that sort of thing. Selling mainstream brands and not nameless Chinese products is another layer of defense. IANAL.

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

#55

Post by throwawayboise »

aidenn0 wrote: post #33
babypuncher wrote: post #32

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.

I don't buy anything from Amazon anymore, but I agree most people I know haven't gone that far.

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

#56

Post by frumper »

walrus01 wrote: post #20

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 event happen with a product that cost $11.99 and they offered a $10 amazon gift card if I reviewed it. I did like the product and left a review, and they emailed me a gift card a week later. I was quite surprised. How does the business side of that work?

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

#57

Post by sneak »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #51
sneak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "disrupt" with "replace with an improved version" and you have accurately characterized my view. The USPS does an absolutely terrible job, by objective measure. Many of their locations are significantly understaffed, with 30-60 minute waits for basic services (for paying customers!). Rude, unhelpful employees are the norm. Why should package and letter delivery be a public service? Their approach is not worki…

With the exception of wait times for in-person service, I don't really get the impression that the USPS does a worse job than any other delivery service. Mail arrives consistently, on time, and at competitive prices. > Why should package and letter delivery be a public service? Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.

> Mail arrives consistently, on time, and at competitive prices.

That's absolutely not true in most parts of their coverage area, especially the extremely dense ones (for example in Manhattan). With FedEx, it is.

> Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.

This, even if we take its premise on faith, seems like an argument for subsidy, not necessarily a publicly operated service like the USPS. Food access is required for all people but we don't have government farms, we give people food credits. We have private hospitals and Medicaid, for another example.

I'm also not sold on the idea that in 2021 (that is, email, webapps, and government subsidized smartphones with browsers and government subsidized network service) that equal access to postal mail is the necessity it once was. Many services now are unusable without an email address, and while they require a postal address the stuff there can be ignored forever if you can access the website and receive email.

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

#58

Post by avidiax »

frumper wrote: post #56
walrus01 wrote: post #20

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 event happen with a product that cost $11.99 and they offered a $10 amazon gift card if I reviewed it. I did like the product and left a review, and they emailed me a gift card a week later. I was quite surprised. How does the business side of that work?

Easy, don't put that notice in every box, and don't expect that everyone that receives the notice would bother filling it out, and maybe once you are winding down that product, start delaying or just not sending the gift cards.

You only need to keep ahead of the other items in the same product category in terms of average score and review count. That's public information, so it's pretty clear how many of these gift cards you need to give out to top the category.

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

#59

Post by avidiax »

oh_sigh wrote: post #26
walrus01 wrote: post #20

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.

Maybe leave the standard glowing 5-star review, plus a picture of the headphones with the card visible.

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

#60

Post by Dracophoenix »

wahern wrote: post #53
jimmaswell wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a big risk reselling anything with any potential to go wrong in California, or at least insurance premiums will be very high.

Not just in California, but in most of the U.S. and E.U. But if you weren't yourself negligent, you can recover your losses from an upstream supplier. In practice it's manufacturers or importers who bear most of the insurance cost. The whole point of the doctrine is that someone injured by a faulty product shouldn't have to hunt down the negligent party, who may have chosen to sell through a byzantine supply chain in…

What counts as a supplier as far as California is considered? If someone sells a non-functional piece of equipment via Ebay, how does that work? Unlike Amazon ,which some argue is closer to a store, Ebay is an open market where you're buying the product as is and not as an SKU. When does caveat emptor become a consideration?
Post reply on HN