When Your Amazon Purchase Explodes (theatlantic.com) 168
Why is it still so easy for consumers to buy poorly made, dangerous batteries that explode, and why is it so difficult to tamp down on counterfeits or hold the sellers -- or the platforms the sellers use, such as Amazon -- accountable? From a report: In the massive global network of manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and resellers, it can be nearly impossible to tell who's actually responsible for getting any given product into your living room. Even when it sets your couch on fire. [...] More than half of the items sold on Amazon are listed by third-party sellers -- not by Amazon itself -- which makes ensuring that products are safe and authentic difficult, according to Juozas Kaziukenas, the founder of Marketplace Pulse, a firm that researches Amazon. In the case of batteries, batches of lithium-ion cells made in China that don't pass inspection sometimes end up listed by sellers on Amazon, said Michael Rohwer, a director of Business for Social Responsibility, a nonprofit that works with companies on their supply-chain practices.
[...] Insurance companies have even started to sue both Amazon and battery makers because they say they've had to pay out many claims over lithium-ion-battery explosions. Allstate New Jersey Insurance sued Amazon in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleging that a battery bought on Amazon caused "extensive" damage to a home, which required the insurance company to make "significant payments" to the insured. That case was eventually dismissed, but both State Farm and General Insurance Company of America are currently suing Amazon because of fires they say were caused by lithium-ion batteries purchased on the platform.
[...] Insurance companies have even started to sue both Amazon and battery makers because they say they've had to pay out many claims over lithium-ion-battery explosions. Allstate New Jersey Insurance sued Amazon in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleging that a battery bought on Amazon caused "extensive" damage to a home, which required the insurance company to make "significant payments" to the insured. That case was eventually dismissed, but both State Farm and General Insurance Company of America are currently suing Amazon because of fires they say were caused by lithium-ion batteries purchased on the platform.
lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:5, Informative)
This is basic product liability law that was settled **decades* ago in the US.
The producer and every entity down the distribution chain is liable.
End of story.
hawk, esq.
Re:lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:5, Informative)
Every entity down the chain is potentially liable, but IIRC only if they reasonably could have known of the problem (this is a fairly low bar). The answer for Amazon is clearly not so straightforward, as the case mentioned in TFS was dismissed.
Personally, I think Amazon is generally failing to police its platform for fraud. That can never be perfect, but we're not talking about "perfect", we're talking about "reasonable diligence". Amazon is really great, perhaps the best in the world, at certain types of fraud detection, but they just don't seem to care about fraudulent sellers on their platform.
That sort of disregard sure makes it seem like they could be liable. They have the demonstrated ability to fight fraud quite well, but they choose not to. That's pretty clear.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because the staggering number of chinese scammers are amazons new customer base and we're the product being sold. Amazon's entire operation top to bottom was completely upended to go from their old style "A to Z guarantee" model to the exact opposite, escaping responsibility at every possible turn. They even deliberately mingle fraudulent and legitimate inventory.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if depends if it ships from amazon or not. When shipped from amazon, a lot of times "identical" products from different sellers are lumped into one bin. Of course the workers doing the consolidation are rarely qualified or motivated for spotting fakes/old/bad product. If it shipped or imported by amazon the prima facie responsibility should be there. The products on the site that legitimately sold without guarantee of fitness should be clearly marked as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon will be proactive here if they want to keep their sales figures high. They will not want to have millions of homeowners balking after they get a notice from their homeowner's insurance that claims involving batteries bought on Amazon will be denied.
Insurance companies have ways of making this sort of thing somebody else's problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I think Amazon is generally failing to police its platform for fraud.
^^^^THIS. This is the understatement of the century, lol.
It seems nearly half the stuff sold on Amazon turn out to be either knockoffs or knockoffs-of-knockoffs.
With that said, yes, it's difficult for Amazon to control the actual products sold...there are way too many places for fraud or substitution to occur to make this a simple task. It's an extremely difficult task that can be bypassed or spoofed in any number of ways.
And it's not by any means exclusive to Amazon- take this story for example:
https://sci [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
>Every entity down the chain is potentially liable, but IIRC only if they reasonably
>could have known of the problem (this is a fairly low bar).
Not in the overwhelming majority of US states, which are "strict liability" on product defects.
The policy rationale was that this was a better way of sharing the risk.
It's typically the manufacturer that bears the burden, as it has the deepest pockets.
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that UPS is liable for defective product that it delivers? What about the company that paved the roads that the product was delivered on? The company that made the conveyor belts used in the warehouse? All of these companies could legitimately damage a product, but I don't think you actually mean "every entity down the chain", but rather a specific list,
Re: (Score:2)
No, the *delivery* company is not part of the chain.
The manufacturer, *all* intervening wholesalers, and the retailer.
And this is talking about a provable defect in the product, not simply that someone is hurt.
This is the rule in most, but not all, US states.
Note that if Amazon sells you the exploding battery, it's liable for the defect, while if someone else sells through an amazon store, it typically would not be.
"fulfilled by Amazon" raises an interesting question, as such commerce wasn't possible at the
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, OK, I think we're saying about the same thing. The interesting question certainly does seem to be whether Amazon's storefront makes them a distributor. Logistically, they obviously are for "fulfilled by Amazon" products, which may be an interesting distinction.
Re: (Score:3)
What's clear is that you have no specific knowledge here and are blathering about things you have no concept of, like how law actually works.
I'm the one agreeing (mostly) with the district court judge who dismissed the Allstate lawsuit. I've also seen Amazon fraud prevention from the inside: nothing is perfect in the world of software, but I found it quite impressive.
Re:lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:5, Interesting)
Settled, yes. But Amazon is actually shielding the 3rd-party sellers from liability by commingling inventory from multiple sellers. Amazon made a lot of money by simplifying their warehouse, but now it's coming back to get them. The are whole categories of products that I won't buy from Amazon anymore, so they're starting to lose revenue as this gets worse.
Re:lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:4, Interesting)
Settled, yes. But Amazon is actually shielding the 3rd-party sellers from liability by commingling inventory from multiple sellers. Amazon made a lot of money by simplifying their warehouse, but now it's coming back to get them. The are whole categories of products that I won't buy from Amazon anymore, so they're starting to lose revenue as this gets worse.
Amazon is also suffering because the reviews often don't relate to the product in question. I assume it's because the seller put up a good product, got good reviews, then replaced it with a crummy product but kept the reviews. I was looking for a "power+3.5mm 2-in-1 splitter" for my iphone. 90% of the listings on amazon had inapplicable reviews.
Re:lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also the problem where multiple variations are actually wildly different products but the reviews don't auto-filter to just that one variation. This may not make a difference when you're talking different sizes of diaper packs, but a huge difference when you're comparing two completely different models of network switch that happen to be made by the same manufacturer - one managed, one unmanaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Settled, yes. But Amazon is actually shielding the 3rd-party sellers from liability by commingling inventory from multiple sellers. Amazon made a lot of money by simplifying their warehouse, but now it's coming back to get them. The are whole categories of products that I won't buy from Amazon anymore, so they're starting to lose revenue as this gets worse.
Amazon is also suffering because the reviews often don't relate to the product in question. I assume it's because the seller put up a good product, got good reviews, then replaced it with a crummy product but kept the reviews. I was looking for a "power+3.5mm 2-in-1 splitter" for my iphone. 90% of the listings on amazon had inapplicable reviews.
Amazon bins products from different sources in their warehouse, so the seller could STILL be putting up a good product, while counterfeiters freeride off of their good reviews.
Again, this is Amazon saying "Yeah, these are all the same thing", even though they come from multiple sources, not necessarily the original product vendor trying to pull one over on you. Look up the foofaraw around the eclipse shields where they had to recall all of them because they couldn't figure out who got the legit ones and wh
Re: (Score:3)
... The are whole categories of products that I won't buy from Amazon anymore, so they're starting to lose revenue as this gets worse.
Agree wholeheartedly, anything of any potential danger or health related is out of the question. Often it's virtually impossible to trace the seller - they setup a bogus office in the US and disappear on any problem to later register a new company with a different name.
Returning a flawed item is only "theoretical", as once, after a lengthy exchange and Amazon intervention the seller agreed to accept the return, I shipped the item via USPS (other services' fees were higher than the price and seems like Amaz
Re: (Score:2)
You need some better laws. In the UK you can return anything bought online in the first two weeks for any or no reason. If it's not faulty you pay return postage, if it's broken or not as described the seller does. Amazon complies with this and sends you mailing labels.
You don't need to return the original packaging either, just the item. So no worried about opening blister packs or just chucking the box away.
Re: (Score:2)
...and interestingly, laws designed to protect consumers are actually making Amazon a better prospect to buy from.
That is, let's say Asprin from Amazon is either real or just salt pills (because they've been faked and commingled). You receive fakes, which you identify yourself by some cunning means. You can *always* return them, and in some cases you can even get a free courier pickup to return them (or free drop off). Thus, you can afford to "take the risk" (although if you get fakes too often, you'd obvio
Re:lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:5, Insightful)
> But Amazon is actually shielding the 3rd-party sellers from liability by commingling inventory from multiple sellers.
Indeed. And it would seem to me that in any reasonable world, if they make it impossible to identify seller responsible, then *they* should become responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
it would seem to me that in any reasonable world, if they make it impossible to identify seller responsible, then *they* should become responsible.
Well, other than Amazon's revenue level making a few judges scared to preside over the specific cases, it is already that way; if they're both taking parts of the actions of the seller, then they're both responsible as the seller.
Easy as can be, this is not even close to an edge case; this stuff was worked out decades ago. It isn't about having to become responsible, they're responsible in the first place when they decide to sell the thing. And if they're the first company selling it in the US, and it was i
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest option is for the vendor to always be liable for everything. Accidents, explosions, statutory warranties etc. The consumer then always knows who to go to with issues.
If the vendor wants to sue up the chain that's up to them. But either way they should stand behind anything they sell, none of this "we are just a marketplace" bullshit.
Not just inventory (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition Amazon has gotten much more aggressive about combining reviews from multiple sellers of similar products, even more so than they co-mingle inventory. It has gotten to the point where it is impossible to determine whether the reviews you are reading are related to the product you are buying at all.
In some cases it is just annoying, like the reviews of all english translations of Don Quixote being grouped together, or reviews of various special box sets of DVDs, which each have different content.
In other cases it is completely nonsensical (reviews for hair product on an electronic listing). I've read that this is caused by fraud, where a seller will take over an abandoned listing with high ratings, claiming it as their own and then changing the listing to sell something else while maintaining ratings.
But it is worst when combined with the rise in counterfeiting. More than half of the listings I look at have reviews that the customer didn't get what was listed, but there is no way to know whether the review applies to this seller or another one, so it poisons the reputation of all sellers, and the site as a whole.
Now, you can argue those reviews should have been left on the seller, not the product. However, unlike other marketplaces like eBay or Etsy, which put seller identity and reputation front and center, Amazon has chosen to put co-mingled product ratings front and center, with the seller being a small easily overlooked detail. This is true at time of purchase where when reading reviews, as well as after purchase when leaving reviews. As such, most reviews are placed on the product, not the seller, and the only thing sellers get rated for is delivery speeds (usually amazons fault).
These were all deliberate decisions by Amazon to decrease friction, but in doing so make it harder for consumers to judge sellers. Another reason they should be liable for the products they sell.
Re:Not just inventory (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon has chosen to put co-mingled product ratings front and center, with the seller being a small easily overlooked detail.
They should at least do that. When you buy from one seller, it could be another seller's inventory that gets shipped to you when they're using Amazon fulfillment. That's the issue with the commingled inventory.
Re:Not just inventory (Score:4, Interesting)
This is really just a case of extreme deregulation. If everything sold on Amazon were regulated and inspected and traced to within a inch of it's life, the way that people in the US are used to, then there would be far fewer issues.
There has to be a balance. It is too far in favor of the manufacturers. Boeing got to inspect it's own planes, and we have two crashes so far with hundreds dead. The hoverboartd thing caused thousands of injuries and at least one death.
One thing government does well is impose a level playing field with a minimum level of acceptable quality and safety. Young people who have never lived in world without heavy government regulation take it for granted. Now with Amazon and Uber and AirBnB, they are learning the imperfections of laissez faire marketplace.
Re:Not just inventory (Score:4, Informative)
Even worse, in cases like the eclipse viewing glasses a couple years ago, even if you order a reputable brand, you might get a cheap knock-off anyway.
One might have hoped Amazon learned something from that, but the exploding battery problem suggests otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part about that is that they didn't take the blame. They took the money away from sellers of authentic eclipse glasses under the same SKU when the buyer got shipped the counterfeiter's product due to commingling.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't act until something manages to burn down one of their warehouses.
I wonder what fire suppression they have. Don't want to go too nuts because e.g. spraying water everywhere might cause more damage than the fire.
Re:Not just inventory (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not safe with high value name brands either. All third party sellers of a sku that fulfill through Amazon have their inventory commingled. You can't select a safe seller who doesn't sell fakes and the counterfeiters get credit for having sold the real thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It may not be SETTLED LAW but certainly there are established precedents in how the Federal Gov't considers fungible (intermixed, interchangeable) goods in import law: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/naft... [cbp.gov]
It's all based on proportion and arrival. Let's say you're importing 20t sand from Saudi and 10t sand from China. The Chinese sand is found to be violating some sort of trademark, and there's a penalty assessed. If the 20t arrived before the 10t and then they were comingled, the first 20t you've shipped out
Re: (Score:2)
" The are whole categories of products that I won't buy from Amazon anymore, so they're starting to lose revenue as this gets worse. "
Exactly this.
Camera batteries being the category I refuse to buy from Amazon after receiving counterfeit ones. I don't care what the price savings is, I buy authentic batteries from licensed resellers for all camera bodies I own. Not only would I prefer to keep the home flame free, I'm not about to trust a counterfeit battery in a fairly expensive camera body.
Re: (Score:2)
>But Amazon is actually shielding the 3rd-party sellers from liability by commingling inventory from multiple sellers.
That would make it hard to hold the manufacturer, yes (attempts to hold accountable by market share have generally, but not always, failed.).
But as amazon is in the chain of distribution, if the plaintiff can show a defect in design (rather than mere failure), amazon is on the hook.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I'm surprised the legal argument didn't pop out during a cursory reading of this.
Re: lawyer: eyeroll, this is long settled (Score:5, Insightful)
>If it's the same SKU, it's the same product.
That assumes that the product isn't fraudulent. It's not exactly uncommon for fraudulent products to be packaged identically to the legitimate versions.
Re: (Score:3)
haha, a term meaning to mix/blend together is racist? Also it's commingling, two "m"s.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "commingling" is not. Although the word is rare enough that most people may be aware of it from racist speeches (racists loved to use it, for some reason.) However, there are a lot of mix/blend together terms that are highly racist, as for some reason (racism) it was very important to have a bunch of words for precise mixes of ancestry in the US. They've fallen out of use, and I don't even think racists use them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a common household word that any middle school child is familiar with.
Re: (Score:2)
I rarely hear commingling in contexts outside of finance or law. Not a middle school word. Not that I'm saying it's archaic, I just doubt most people have heard it outside some clip of an old racist. But, I'm forever misjudging that the "average person" knows or doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to escape your echo chamber. It's common.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's be honest, as long as the fonts are similar, one 'm' is just like any other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No issue with "comingling". Honestly that term sounds racist.
Your skin isn't even thick enough for comingled recycling.
I never imagined that would become a sick burn.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's the same SKU, it's the same product. No issue with "comingling". Honestly that term sounds racist.
Yeah, but Amazon doesn't vet the SKUs. So if someone sends a bunch of counterfeit product and says it's the same SKU as the original product, Amazon just puts them all in the same bin.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However with Amazon and eBay a lot of products are distributed by the producer.
It would be like suing your credit card company for the faulty product you bought. Granted most cards have a degree of fraud protection, but it isn't part of the distribution of the product.
Amazon for a lot of products, just lists it on its website, and when you order the product the producer, will package and ship the product all outside of Amazons control. Amazon just sells a portion of the profit for having it available on it
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK if the item is worth over £100 and you pay for any part of it on credit card, the credit card issuer is actually liable just the same as the vendor.
It's quite useful protection. Say you buy a car costing £25k, pay £24k in cash and £1000 on the card. The dealer goes bust, you don't get the car, you are way down the list of creditor and unlikely to get any money that way. But the credit card issuer is liable for the whole £25k, and they wil
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy this argument anymore, the whole "well all we did was list it, we didn't actually sell it!".
Amazon is the storefront. They're responsible. The purchase wouldn't have occurred if not for Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
What a moron.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scrolling through reviews, he realized other buyers were reporting fires from the same item.
If only he read the reviews BEFORE he bought it....
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the victim is to blame here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dunno if I'd go that far (or if you're being sarcastic) but it does take away the "I didn't know because they didn't tell me...." defense because he affirmatively could have found out for himself via Amazon....had he tried.
Re: (Score:2)
Waffle Iron is stating that's what your top comment boils down to. Should amazon be selling batteries that were known to explode? Really it's on them to recognize their product is blowing up before the next person has to suffer.
Re: (Score:2)
But, unless the information about potentially causing a fire comes from the seller of the item, it's hearsay.
People can say whatever they want in a review.
Re: (Score:2)
The victim isn't to blame, but it is your responsibility to protect yourself. I think it's absolutely reasonable to reduce the potential awards given to a victim if the victim actively put themselves in harms way.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anybody wants "you didn't believe something someone wrote on the Internet" to be a legal defence.
Re:What a moron.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That doesn't help much with the "co-mingling" issue - where identical products are binned together regardless of the re-seller who sourced them. So instead of one re-seller product page receiving a large number of negative reviews, indicating a problem, those negative reviews get spread among all similar products. Say a good product should average 4.5 stars, and a counterfeit should average 2 stars, well with co-mingling there is no page for the counterfeit product, and instead the product averages 4 stars.
So co-mingling is hiding the damage from the counterfeits, effectively protecting counterfeit re-sellers. And there is little the consumer can do to recognize this.
Re:What a moron.... (Score:5, Informative)
Well Amazon Reviews are always hit or miss. A lot of the reviews are from people who didn't buy the product. Others are from people who happened to get the sigma 6+ faulty product, or had misused it. Then you get some the massive Fan Boys and Paid placed reviews.
We had some reports of Apple iPhones catching on fire, only to realize that people were plugging them into faulty 3rd party chargers which in essence just took your homes AC Current and wired it to fit a USB socket.
Re: (Score:3)
Well Amazon Reviews are always hit or miss. A lot of the reviews are from people who didn't buy the product. Others are from people who happened to get the sigma 6+ faulty product, or had misused it.
Most persistent issue I've had with Amazon reviews is the reviewers are not even talking about the same product up on your screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon tries hard to make sure you don't see those kinds of reviews. There is no search function and a 3 year old review of a different but similar product will usually have more "helpful" votes than a brand new one pointing out the explosive nature of whatever crap they are shipping today.
Amazon could easily scan reviews for words like "exploded", or they could act on refund requests that list "caught fire" as the reason. But they don't.
Bubly (Score:2)
The worst I've had explode was cans of Bubly. Still, that was in a box packed with other things that consequently got doused in the prized cherry flavoured essence... and several cans had exploded... not happy.
Perhaps not as bad as a battery fire or a Samsung Cellphone, but still annoying.
#primeworldproblems.
Re: (Score:2)
LiPo batteries usually cause more issues the LiOn ones. A 18650 cell is pretty robust and hard to damage, and LiPo bag is fairly easy to damage. Most of the cheap scooters were problematic because they used LiPo bags and got damaged easily when they were mistreated. Likely 18650s would have help up better, but been more expensive and heavier.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely 18650s would have held up better, but been more expensive and heavier.
stupid typos...
Re: (Score:3)
This is inviting government regulation. Basically: Lithium Ion battery units not permanently and individually encased in a thick, robust heat-resistant flameproofed insulated shell for use in a product should be banned from being imported or shipped; in the same way that Lawn Darts were banned.
Re: (Score:2)
I've resurrected 18650s that were under volted using my hobby charger. You have to be careful doing it, but they've worked fine since then. I super slow trickle charge them on a NiMH cycle. After they get enough voltage again, charge them on lion cycle, discharge cycle and charge again. All of this outside on concrete just in case of course, lol.
"Tamp down on.."? (Score:1)
What does "tamp down on" mean in this context?
Maybe you mean "Clamp down"?
Re: (Score:2)
Strings of words don't have to be a cliche phrase to be used. And since tamping was used on old explosive firearms, it's like your average journalistic pun.
Yes, "tamp down" is a phrase (Score:2)
What does "tamp down on" mean in this context?
From the dictionary to reduce the amount, level, size or importance of something [cambridge.org].
There is this thing called Google. It's really handy for looking up definitions. You should try it sometime.
Re: (Score:1)
They mean, "you need to tamp down, to make sure the items are properly loaded into the box so they all go up in flames properly".
Re: (Score:2)
It means to properly affix or "tamp" that sticker saying that the box contains lithium-ion batteries that pose an explosion hazard. Once the sticker's on the box, you're 100% safe from explosions.
Well, someone's safe from something, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, supposed to have a lamp hooked up to the batteries to keep a small load on em and stop criticality...
Co-mingling makes this even worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
But if multiple sellers are listing the same product, those products are stored in the same bin at Amazon, Kaziukenas said. That can mean defective, dangerous, and counterfeit products are being stored—and shipped—alongside legitimate ones, and that Amazon may have a hard time knowing which seller sold which.
Maybe the only benefit from buying "Sold by Amazon" is that you can sue them directly for counterfeit goods, whereas with third party fakes, Amazon can just pass the buck.
Re: (Score:2)
this is nothing new and doesn't originate with amazon, issue existed over 100 years ago
the laws are already in place for this situation, you kids think every problem is new and special
Re:Co-mingling makes this even worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exacerbates this problem is a practice the article highlights called "co-mingling" where identical products sold by different merchants and fulfilled through the "Fulfillment by Amazon" program are mixed in the same bins in warehouses including products "Sold by Amazon."
That's not quite true, Items sold by Amazon are usually kept separate from items from third-party sellers, though Amazon distribution centers are a mess and mistakes happen. If you get a bad item Sold By Amazon, it probably wasn't a mix-up at the warehouse (which is worse, hen you think about it).
Source: I worked for some time for Amazon automating distribution centers.
Maybe the only benefit from buying "Sold by Amazon" is that you can sue them directly for counterfeit goods, whereas with third party fakes, Amazon can just pass the buck.
That's a pretty big advantage, and it's not just the lawsuit threat. Amazon has always been very responsive to customer complaints when they're the seller. I don't understand why they're willing to harm customer trust with this flea market shit: if they ship it, they should stand behind the customer, even if they didn't sell it.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand why they're willing to harm customer trust with this flea market shit: if they ship it, they should stand behind the customer, even if they didn't sell it.
Because its to their advantage to both have the marketplace be the largest (so people feel forced to sell there in order to reach the potential audience), as well as to have a stigma associated with anything not "sold by amazon" so people prefer to buy directly from them (essentially giving them a direct edge on the platform)?
Re:Co-mingling makes this even worse... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They already have a sticker, called a SPU (a SPU is seller-specific, unlike a SKU). You've probably seen them, they're a narrow unlabeled barcode sticker. I'm pretty sure they know at the point of shipping who the seller was, but that doesn't mean they care. I'm quite sure legitimate sellers find this much more frustrating than customers.
It happened to me: Genuine Lenovo battery wasn't.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why the only products that I buy from Amazon are ebooks and digital music tracks. I have never gotten fake ebooks, and no digital music track has ever caught fire or exploded! I don't trust third party sellers on any site!
Must not read George Orwell ebooks [theguardian.com]
idiots (Score:2)
even batteries from major manufacturers or made under contract from them have non-zero chance of exploding
other defective products can do harmful unexpected things
amazon is no different than any other seller
the laws already exist for this
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that energy dense is gonna have a chance to cause problems.
You're supposed to read reviews before purchasing (Score:2)
"Curious about what had happened, Jones went back online to try to contact the seller and alert Amazon to the problem. Scrolling through reviews, he realized other buyers were reporting fires from the same item. "
Re:You're supposed to read reviews before purchasi (Score:5, Insightful)
And products are supposed to be fit for sale, full stop. Reviews are supposed to cover whether I want to buy the item. Not, whether the item will kill me/be defective. That's what we have product liability laws for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's why the federal government forbid their use. And Boeing probably has a lot of exposure.
No, the best way is a serious of liabilities that incentivize manufacturers to produce worthy products. Nor would I consider reading the reviews of a commodity product to be "common sense."
well under the EULA you are at fault and the 3rd p (Score:2)
well under the EULA you are at fault and the 3rd party driver may sue you as they are 1099 and amazon does not own them anything.
Easy way to avoid counterfeits... (Score:3)
You think that's bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA got fake steel from a Chinese provider and a rocket exploded.
Seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
NASA got fake steel from a Chinese provider and a rocket exploded.
Seriously.
NASA should have purchased from Jet.com instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that was an American steel manufacturer, Sapa Profiles, based in Oregon.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Brought to you... (Score:3)
Brought to you by the Troy McClure department?
Amazon marketplace is an IQ test (Score:2)
If it isn't sold by Amazon directly it isn't worth buying on Amazon same goes for Wal-Mart and all other e-retailers with third party marketplaces. It's an uncontrolled cesspool of corruption.
Amazon has intentionally sabotaged feedback mechanisms that would enable meaningful seller accountability. Try reviewing bad seller feedback on Amazon it's an impossible exercise in futility by design.
If you want to roll the dice with purchases from a marketplace stick to eBay.
Reality check for Amazon fanboys (Score:2)
1. Spend 1 second using Amazon search to find a clear instance of fraud.
https://www.amazon.com/Flash-M... [amazon.com]
2. Bring it to Amazon's attention. They won't do anything... They will never do anything.. They don't care... not even a little bit. It's as productive as replying to an email spammer asking them nicely to please stop.
I can relate... (Score:2)
Amazon are definitely complicit here (Score:2, Informative)
I purchased a 5V 8A power supply listed as 'Amazon's Choice'. When it arrived, the unit was obviously far too light to plausibly deliver the rated power and when tested it was faulty anyway, with the voltage ramping from 4V to 5V and back again periodically. So I returned it and attempted to post a negative review. This was rejected by Amazon. I then posted the same review with 5 stars, listing all the defects of the PSU as if they were attributes (e.g, this power supply was very flexible and gave me all th
That (almost) happened to me! (Score:2)
With no real harm done, I posted a scathing review and bought a new one.
This is why i stopped using amazon (Score:2)
And , frankly, I don't see why they're not liable for everything.
Amazon = Counterfeits (Score:2)
I still buy some things through Amazon these days, but it's basically only products that are either very unlikely to be counterfeited (e.g. a printer)
Re:Caveat Emptor (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Amazon is I can buy a "top shelf" product from a reputable seller, and instead get delivered a counterfeit product from a cut-rate seller, because Amazon threw all the stock from both sellers into the same bin. Same UPC, same product, right? Unless of course the counterfeiter just copied the packaging from the legit product, UPC and all.