6 ms·
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.
by master-litty 8y ago
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.
- acou_nPlusOne_t 8y agoIts the bazar companys responsibility to avoid counterfeit goods, by having the company who trades their leave either there winnings and/or a safety deposit behind in case they get sued. Its also to make sure, the legal system of the customer binds on the trading contract and inform/warn the customer that the item in question could be a molotow cocktail.
- seabird 8y agoI re-read the article a few times and saw no mention of the product being counterfeit. They are all chintzy, poorly constructed, and come out of the same factory or two. Even if there was a brand name to counterfeit, the "counterfeit" would likely be almost exactly the same as the genuine article. Monoprice has a business model based on this premise. What is the metric for "Molotov cocktail"? Anything that has batteries with a high energy density can be extremely dangerous. Cell phones, laptops, RC cars, power banks, and anything with a lithium ion battery can catastrophically and potentially fatally fail. Sure, you could mandate that Amazon run their own battery of safety tests on every product that is sold on their site; they sure as hell could afford it. The problem is that there's just about nobody else in the market that can.
- baybal2 8y agoMost of that stuff simply never goes through Amazon's hands. Amazon simply acts as a Chinese dropshipper for overseas purchases. They decided that it is best to copy AliExpress, than be overwhelmed by it.
- astura 8y agoThe article explains another way to see it - because the manufacturer in this case (and most safety cases involving Amazon) are sketchy Chinese companies that are selling products that don't even attempt to meet any sort of safety standards, contain counterfeit safety markings, and are basically illegal to sell in the United States. Both the seller and manufacturer are impossible to track down when something goes wrong. I would bet even if you were able to track them down it would be impossible to enforce any fines or judgements against them because they are in an outside jurisdiction. It can be argued that Amazon should have some sort legal responsibility to do a miminal vetting process for things it sells on it's site. Or, in other words, should be required to make an effort to only sell legal products. "Not our problem that someone else is using our store to sell illegal and unsafe products that we store in our wearhouses, accept payment for, and deliver" shouldn't be a valid defense.
- ctrl-j 8y agoIn 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?
- asfasgasg 8y agoI 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.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sk5t 8y agoSuppose 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?
- scarface74 8y agoIt 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.
- sk5t 8y agoWould Amazon then check and enforce the status/claims against the bond as part of processing each order? It's an interesting idea for sure. It seems like this would put a total stop to inventory commingling, which does sound attractive, at an abstract level.
- mohdmasd 8y agoLetter of Guarantee? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/letter_of_guarantee.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/letter_of_guarantee.asp
- buckminster 8y agoThe 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.
- c2h5oh 8y agoFollowing 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?
- ezrast 8y agoOne possible line is that you can't have a vendor-vendee relationship between two parties if one of them doesn't know the other exists. It's nonsensical to claim that Amazon is facilitating a relationship between manufacturer and buyer if we take at face value the claim that they don't even know who the manufacturer is. At that point, Amazon effectively owns the product and is a reseller.
- yardie 8y agoLet’s keep it simple. Whoever takes the money is the vendor. Amazon lists it, amazon fulfills it, and they get paid for it. Sounds like the vendor to me.
- disposablename 8y agoAmazon takes your money, they are responsible for the shit they receive.