[HN Gopher] Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Am...
___________________________________________________________________
Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is
fighting it
Author : ProAm
Score : 140 points
Date : 2021-06-11 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| eigenvector wrote:
| 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.
|
| The party most able to root out sellers of defective or
| counterfeit goods is probably Amazon, but they currently have no
| incentive to do so as the liability is offloaded to judgement-
| proof Marketplace sellers.
|
| Amazon's business innovation here is figuring out how to run a
| multi billion dollar retail business without product liability,
| and that's negative for society.
| wahern wrote:
| 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 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.
| Animats wrote:
| Oh, that's important, and new. Here's the actual decision in
| Loomis vs. Amazon.[1] Amazon has been fighting that case
| since 2016, and last April, they lost at the appellate level
| in California. But the plaintiff hasn't won damages yet; the
| case will now be sent back to the LA Superior Court where
| discovery will continue; a trial date is expected to be set
| in 2022.
|
| 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...
| jimmaswell wrote:
| So Wal Mart is liable for defective products in California
| too?
| wahern wrote:
| 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#Landmar
| k_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] And the first jurisdiction globally, I think.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Sounds like a big risk reselling anything with any
| potential to go wrong in California, or at least
| insurance premiums will be very high.
| wahern wrote:
| 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.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| 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?
| wahern wrote:
| Strict product liability usually only applies to
| commercial sellers. That doesn't directly answer your
| question, but suffice it to say there are bodies of law
| that exist to answer that question. It's certainly not a
| new question as flea markets, garage sales, charity
| drives, and many other situations long predate Amazon and
| eBay.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| 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.
| bena wrote:
| So basically, Amazon is a large parking lot where they're
| charging a booth fee for the largest grey farmers' market in
| existence.
| babypuncher wrote:
| 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.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 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.
| reportingsjr wrote:
| 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.
| oblio wrote:
| 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).
| chiefgeek wrote:
| Same here. It isn't easy. I dropped Prime a couple years
| ago. I think I placed five total orders last year, pandemic
| and all.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I don't buy anything from Amazon anymore, but I agree most
| people I know haven't gone that far.
| walrus01 wrote:
| 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.
| paulpauper wrote:
| As many have already mentioned in prior discussions, 5-star
| reviews are meaningless and Amazon does not care.
| rStar wrote:
| this has been going on for years. amazon benefits, so they
| allow the practice.
| whoza wrote:
| 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.
| ilamont wrote:
| Yep. Widespread problem, as noted in this submission and
| thread:
|
| 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.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| 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.
| zentiggr wrote:
| Until Amazon has financial liability for fake/paid reviews,
| they will never go away.
| avidiax wrote:
| Maybe leave the standard glowing 5-star review, plus a
| picture of the headphones with the card visible.
| frumper wrote:
| 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?
| avidiax wrote:
| 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.
| lucioperca wrote:
| How is that even an issue for the HN-folks? This clearly takes
| power away from amazon, as for example this helps with growing
| business relations outside of amazon (you might start buying
| directly from the seller at some point).
| paxys wrote:
| Everyone on this forum is a temporarily embarrassed big tech
| founder/CEO who hates regulations which let the little guys
| compete.
| leipert wrote:
| Germany just passed a law that forces Amazon, eBay (or any
| platform) to be transparent about who you are buying from
| (company / individuals). Additionally they need to be transparent
| about how they rank search result and whether the results include
| paid placements.
|
| German source here: https://www.golem.de/news/bundestag-amazon-
| und-ebay-zu-mehr-...
| Clent wrote:
| If the only argument is having to list a home address then a PO
| Box resolves the privacy issue.
| frumper wrote:
| When I setup a small online business, that was one of the first
| things I did. It doesn't cost much at all, and was very easy.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| In my experience, a "real" address is needed somewhere. PO
| Boxes are fine for many things, but for process service, etc.
| the part of your state government that is responsible for
| business entities will want a real address.
| technofiend wrote:
| 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 this to great effect as package theft is so rampant
| in my area. It does add a one day delay since the package
| is signed for by my post office and not delivered into my
| po box until the next day. And I've had to call and
| complain to Amazon a few times until they stopped trying to
| use their vans to deliver to that address. The drivers
| rarely read the instructions that say "You must deliver
| during business hours as this is a post office." When
| Amazon actually ships via USPS to my po box I get the
| packages same day as delivery so it's the best of all
| scenarios. Really I don't know why people have a such hate
| on for the post office. I love it.
|
| https://postalpro.usps.com/mailing/competitivepoboxes
|
| But yeah most likely a process server will leave the post
| office frustrated. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a
| feature. :-)
| dimva wrote:
| the USPS consistently has the highest favorability rating
| of any government agency, at 91%:
| https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-
| oversight/2021/04/usps...
| treeman79 wrote:
| Impressive. Grew up when "Going postal" was a popular
| expression due to how often postal workers went on
| shooting rampages.
|
| I recall efforts to reduce stress as apparently managers
| were tired of being murdered.
|
| Maybe new phrase will be "Going Amazon"
| btilly wrote:
| The reason for that was that the US government tried to
| guarantee jobs for veterans. The one government task that
| could use relatively uneducated but fit people no matter
| where they happened to live was postal delivery. So a lot
| of veterans with PTSD and weapons training wound up as
| postal delivery workers.
|
| Veterans with PTSD and weapons training sometimes flip
| out and shoot people.
| skak wrote:
| 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 best things we have left. Not to mention its
| glowing record of equal employment.
| sio8ohPi wrote:
| As someone who loves to complain about the post office,
| you're way overthinking it. There's no conspiracy. I just
| hate spam.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| When I was a kid, I had a job delivering spam. A lot it
| does not come from the post office but from other
| delivery services.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Don't forget the people trying to destroy it so they can
| prevent postal voting in certain counties.
| handrous wrote:
| 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 explain _all_ the
| forces working against them.
| skak wrote:
| 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 public healthcare
| supposedly can never work, for example, despite it's
| success in most developed nations. This depends on
| attacking public services in general. Currently,
| maintaining this sentiment for the private sector against
| the public sector is important to the effort to withhold
| IP of the coronavirus vaccine from the third world. IP
| laws are often complained about by HN readers, but IP
| itself is not. This conflict between regulation and
| anarchy is an eternal contradiction in the
| entrepreneurial pursuit, but public services which serve
| working people equally are ideologically beyond the pale,
| enemies of the entrepreneurial spirit.
| zentiggr wrote:
| The inherent contradiction between
|
| -- "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!"
| sneak wrote:
| 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 working.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| 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.
| midasuni wrote:
| > Because everyone needs equal access to those services.
| Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it
| is or not.
|
| I can see that argument about food, water, healthcare,
| maybe even electricity and internet but postal services?
| It's pretty low down the "need" pyramid.
| sneak wrote:
| > _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.
| spfzero wrote:
| For most shipments in the weight categories I use, USPS
| is the least expensive. It's as reliable as Fed Ex or UPS
| in my experience. I do go into the post office fairly
| regularly, and have a PO box as well. Everyone's nice
| enough, they can answer pretty much any question you
| have. They're experienced, career employees, rather than
| franchisees. Yes, you usually have to wait in line for
| some things, but they have kiosks for simple tasks.
|
| I'm sure others will have had other anecdotal
| experiences, both bad and good, that's just the nature of
| a large organization. I've lived in several different
| cities over time and USPS has been consistently fine.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| > But yeah most likely a process server will leave the
| post office frustrated. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a
| feature. :-)
|
| It's probably one of those things that starts as a
| feature and quickly morphs into a really, really big bug.
| sneak wrote:
| The part of this that is news to me (I have long known
| about using the street address of the post office with
| #BOXNUMBER, and used this to get driver's licenses in the
| past) is that they will now accept UPS/FedEx shipments to
| a PO box when addressed in this manner.
|
| For a long time, the USPS would simply refuse to accept
| deliveries from competitors, which always struck me as
| the utmost in anticompetitive, non-interoperable-by-
| design bullshit. I'm glad to hear they have stopped.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| It's more expensive, but a lawyer can serve that role.
| treeman79 wrote:
| A bus stop is a valid address for some things.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| For anyone believing amazon's claim that servicing vendor
| complaints of copycats/trademark infringers was a "hard" problem
|
| I give you exhibit A.
|
| Its not hard. Amazon is just not interested in fixing it
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| 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 merchandise. Amazon can
| then figure out what it needs to do to fix the issue. Consumers
| shouldn't have to worry about it.
| notriddle wrote:
| I don't expect consumers to track down fake Ball lids and Apple
| chargers. I expect Ball and Apple to do that.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| 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.
| zo1 wrote:
| The watchdogs can't do anything because the sellers are
| essentially spam themselves. That is why Amazon has NNN
| thousand new "stores" opening everyday and why they have a
| billion variations of the exact same product. There is NO
| way that any sort of entity outside of Amazon can make
| heads or tails of that volume of data in order protect the
| consumer.
|
| And Amazon is complicit in this just as much as Aliexpress
| and all the other platforms that are enabling product spam
| coming from China.
| paulpauper wrote:
| consumer watchdogs are useless. the only good deterrent
| against fraud is jail time
| rdtwo wrote:
| I expect amazon to not sell them and to get as sued by Apple
| and Ball if they do
| spfzero wrote:
| So it would make sense that Ball and Apple would need to find
| out who the seller was, from Amazon. Amazon at least knows
| where to send the checks, and likely a lot more about these
| businesses.
|
| What bothers me about Amazon is that they are actively
| providing anonymity to enterprises engaged in consumer-
| hostile activities including fraud, and are resisting efforts
| to pierce the shield they are providing.
| [deleted]
| tomschlick wrote:
| > 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.
| blairanderson wrote:
| 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.
| tomschlick wrote:
| That's absolutely false in my experience. I can't speak for
| who I worked for or our large client list, but there were
| quite a few fortune 50/100 companies in there, and many
| many others monitoring MAP and unauthorized sellers.
| Tooling to track down unauthorized sellers was one of the
| top features that was requested and used.
|
| 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.
| watertom wrote:
| Amazon doesn't want to be liable for ANYTHING, they just want
| to sell stuff and make money any way they can.
|
| The business/GOP view of the world is that responsibility is
| for individuals not corporations. Freeing corporations so they
| can do whatever they want without fear.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-11 23:01 UTC)