9 ms·
Most Amazon-Owned Private Label Brands Have No Warranties
- byoung2 7y agoIf the item is still available, it is possible to purchase it again, and return the broken item during the 30 day return window of the new purchase.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoSo, a 30 day warranty. I guess that's better than 0 days, but barely.
- jasonjayr 7y agoNo, better than that. If it fails 90-180+ days, you can still re-buy & return defective one.
- ars 7y agoNo it's an infinite warranty - every time it breaks, buy it again, return the bad one. Infinite as long as they keep making it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bradknowles 7y agoSo, they constantly switch the exact SKU for the item they’re selling and reject your return because it’s not the same SKU as the other one and make you pay for both. That’s where this practice will lead.
- rhexs 7y agoPossible, but Amazon eventually bans for enough returns, so that isn't a great solution.
- jaytaylor 7y agoI've had them send me a defective item 4x in a row before, only getting it right on attempt #5. I doubt they'll ban you as long as you're honest and behave well. Many products they sell can be sketchy in quality, and I'd bet they are aware of what can go wrong.
- twblalock 7y agoI've returned a lot of stuff for valid reasons (mainly shipping damage) and I've never been banned.
- byoung2 7y agoMy wife has returned 166 items in the last 12 months with no issues
- ghaff 7y agoHow on earth do you get to that level of returns? I use Amazon a lot and I'm pretty sure I don't order that many things over the course of a year.
- ec109685 7y agoMaybe clothes?
- ghaff 7y agoI imagine you're correct. Especially with shoes, lots of people order multiple pairs to try on like they would in a store. Zappos, which Amazon owns, even encourages the practice I believe.
- thrwaway69 7y agoWhy not just go to a store at that point? It would be less hassle...unless there is a specific bulk option for trial, that is so much waste and not very environment friendly. The only times I have returned a thing is when it came broken or was radically different than advertised. If the cost of shipping, environment and combined wasted time of everyone involved is higher than the 70% price of the product, then I will put it in the store room or donate it away at some point later.
- jedimastert 7y agoThis is definitely fraud, yeah? I wonder if they have fraud detection for this kinda thing. Or if it's just not worth the expense for most things.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoFraud requires mens rea. They are going to have to have a hell of a time proving mens rea when the local law expressly allows a consumer to exchange a defective product in the time limit when the supposed fraud happened. Ethical or not it's expressly not criminal.
- slg 7y agoThe old two wrongs make a right defense. I have a feeling this will be as successful in court as it was against my mom when I was 6 years old.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>The old two wrongs make a right defense. Where the hell did you get that from my comment? I'm saying that no prosecutor is going to take a fraud case where the fact pattern is of a consumer manipulating a return system in order to achieve an outcome that was identical to one expressly allowed by their state law (return or exchange for non-defective example within 90 days).
- slg 7y agoIf a store overcharged you $5, are you allowed to break into the store after it closes to steal your $5 back? Because that seems to be your argument that you are justified in breaking the law as long as it returns you to some natural state of evenness.
- jedimastert 7y ago> Fraud requires mens rea You mean like saying you're going to return one item (the one amazon just sent you and the one you clicked on with the shipping date) and actually sending another (one you bought two years ago)? I think it'd be pretty easy to prove, tbh. That's not what I was referring to anyways. They almost certainly wouldn't go to court for a $50 backpack, but they can definitely bar you from using the service if they think you're going to cost them more money than you give.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jiggawatts 7y agoThis is illegal in Australia due to consumer-protection laws that automatically apply. I wonder how Amazon is getting around this, because the agency that punishes vendors tends to come down like a ton of bricks if they get wind of this kind of behaviour...
- madeofpalk 7y agoor they just don't sell them?
- tagh 7y agoAustralian consumer rights exist independently of the warranty offered by the producer. My guess is that it's perfectly legal not to offer an explicit warranty (or one with very short duration), however, it is illegal to refuse refund/repair when reasonably requested. Crucially, the lack or expiry of an explicit warranty is not a valid defence -- it's about the product meeting quality expectations given its cost.
- djsumdog 7y agoWhen I lived in New Zealand, there was a cellphone shop in Auckland that refused to warranty a Nexus 4 that broke (neither Google nor LG warranty this device, unless you buy it from the Google store). The shop refused to fix it because I had unlocked the bootloader and installed LineageOS. They then told me it would cost $12 to ship the phone back to me! People at work told me, "Don't let them get away with that. We have consumer protection laws." I had to take them to a tribunal. It was like 2 hours for the first session, and they wanted a second one (another 1.5 hours). I made the argument that I can buy a Windows laptop and put Linux on it; showed stats how many people install Lineage, how the mobile data failed first, then the Wi-Fi, and then the phone refused to boot, which is an indication of hardware failure (not my software modifications). I fucking hate that company. Hours wasted and the judge awarded me my $450. What's really stupid? Why didn't Google/LG warranty the devices themselves? This should have been as simple as the company just shipping the device back to LG and shipping me a new one. Pushing the warranty down to the individual vendors to repair is fucking assassin.
- 7y ago
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoAs someone who both uses AWS professionally, and as a consumer of goods on Amazon.com, I'm really surprised by the dichotomy in quality. Perhaps I shouldn't be, and that's just how corporations are. If AWS was as shaky as Amazon.com goods, nobody would use it.
- Cephalopterus 7y agoAWS is quite literally a printing press for Amazon that prints it $$ and let's it devour other competitors in the retail eCommerce segment by selling at close to no margins. They need to keep the AWS quality decent because unlike their retail customers, corporations using them can vote with their wallet and/or possibly sue if there's any actual misselling
- lawnchair_larry 7y agoI think you mean figuratively
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoIn informal usage, "literally" is used to provide emphasis. Literally, in this context, doesn't mean literally true. It's a figure of speech. Example: You might've heard a phrase like "I was literally blown away by the response I got" (probably from a vlogger). Nobody in English would say, "I was figuratively blown away by the response I got", because it's obvious the person is speaking figuratively. Here, literally is meant to emphasize just how effective AWS is acting analogously to the Treasury's money printing presses.
- Buge 7y agoWhen there's a word with 2 meanings that are almost opposites of each other, that's confusing. I think it's good to avoid using words in confusing ways like that. https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc?t=163 https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc?t=163
- clement_b 7y agoWill happen to Amazon what has happened to the other big techs assuming U.S. laws / principles could just be applied world-wide without taking local laws / principles into account. Amazon is getting under the scrutiny it deserves, and it will lose some of its current competitive advantages by being forced, fairly or not, to (over) comply with local requirements. Easiest card to play for countries trying to defend their historic, local players 'who pay their taxes in [insert country] and comply with its laws'.
- hoistbypetard 7y ago>Amazon is getting under the scrutiny it deserves, and it will lose some of its current competitive advantages by being forced, fairly or not, to (over) comply with local requirements. Forcing them to comply with warranty/consumer protection laws in a jurisdiction feels very fair when they're selling their own private label brands to customers in that jurisdiction.
- clement_b 7y agoCompletely agree. What you describe, is fair. There is a law. They must comply. What I had in mind is that countries will come up with unfair actions against Amazon. By unfair I mean that with regards to the actual action, not the general situation or the end outcome. For instance, Airbnb or Uber, who are disrupting markets by flirting with legality in many cities, are often targeted by regulations aimed at them, specifically. These regulations are not always fair since their purpose is to reset, if not invert, a situation to help struggling local players. The end goal is to have a fair market, but when fairness is about defending local, less competitive players at all cost then the regulation is unfair. Maybe the word 'fair' is not exactly the right one. 'appropriate' might be better.
- rsynnott 7y agoRequiring companies to obey the law? How rude. No-one is actually forcing them to sell this stuff, you know. If they want to sell it, they’ll have to follow the rules.
- sjg007 7y agoThere are legal implicit warranties. Manufacturers like to reduce your rights by offering limited warranties. This is why they want you to sign the card and send them in to register because it helps them.
- TylerE 7y agoNot in the way you seem to be meaning it. There is an implied warranty of merchantability, but that's not a consumer warranty. Warranty of Merchantability mainly means that the seller must abide by any contract terms and that the product should match any claims or specs on the packaging.
- sjg007 7y agoStatutory warranties.
- bwl 7y agoFor brands selling on Amazon (not Amazon owned) warranty registration is one of the best ways of getting the customer on your list - as Amazon does not share customer's email addresses with their vendors
- theqult 7y agoAre those items sold in Europe too ? By law there is a two years long warranty on item sold in EU, no matter what
- m463 7y agoMost amazon private label stuff is disposable, low cost, I-don't-need-a-warranty stuff. They compete directly against no-brand or unknown-brand chinese imports. Seriously, who cares about a warranty on a $6 thing? As long as it works when you get it, it will probably continue working. Amazonbasics cables or camera tripod DOA? Amazon will ship you a replacement and you can send back the broken one. By the way, all the amazon label clothing comes in bag already set up to repackage and return.
- ilikeatari 7y agoOk, what about environmental considerations? This seems very inefficient.
- marpstar 7y agoEven if they had a warranty they'd just send you a replacement item and throw your old one away. What's the difference besides the money for the new one is coming out of your pocket instead of theirs?
- dec0dedab0de 7y agoI think the idea is that there would be an incentive for them to make the product last
- hanniabu 7y agoThe board: "What about it?"
- m463 7y agoI talked to a friend and he said the UPS store now throws all the individual returns from multiple customers into a single box and ships that back. So there's that.
- adaisadais 7y agoHaha do you think Amazon makes their decisions based on the environment? Of course they don’t.
- chadash 7y agoThis isn't very helpful info without knowing what the item is (I didn't see the article specify this). I mean, if I'm buying a cheap pair of underwear and I can return it within 30 days if it has any initial problems, then I'm 100% fine with no warranty. The chances of me using it are basically zero anyway.
- asdff 7y agoNo warranty, but you can probably use a pair of amazon basics underwear for a year and return it with free shipping for it being insert random reason from drop down menu. Imagine if a car manufacturer offered unlimited halfway fraudulent returns, warranties would feel like a ripoff.
- purplezooey 7y agoWarranties these days are shit anyway. You have to jump through a million hoops to get anything and they often are "pro rated" over the time period so they decay over time.
- Marsymars 7y agoPro-rated warranties aren't necessarily bad - it's too short warranties that are bad. e.g. Costco's warranty on car batteries in Canada is 100% for four years, 50% for the next 1.5, 25% for the next 2.8 years, (100 months total warranty) and claiming the warranty is just a matter of bringing your battery to the returns counter.
- crankylinuxuser 7y agoThen do the semi-unethical thing, and order the same thing again, and return the old one as 'defective' with the new order. This is Scamazon we're talking about here. Lack of care is full circle with that lot.
- JakeAl 7y agoDo they need warranties? Doesn't Amazon have a return anything, anytime policy? I thought I read stories about people just buying stuff, using it, and returning it years later after it's worn out for a refund or replacement. I think I heard this in one of the many Amazon returns mystery box videos on YouTube.
- kyriakos 7y agoIf they are sold in EU warranty is a legal requirement. Sooner or later this will get them in trouble.
- wiggler00m 7y agoDoes consumer protection legislation not impose minimum standards?
- rahimnathwani 7y agoIn California, goods sold without express warranties have implied implied warranties of one year. If goods do have an express warranty, then the implied warranty is as short as the express warranty, but no less than 60 days. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1791.1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... "(c) The duration of the implied warranty of merchantability and where present the implied warranty of fitness shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods, provided the duration of the express warranty is reasonable; but in no event shall such implied warranty have a duration of less than 60 days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer. Where no duration for an express warranty is stated with respect to consumer goods, or parts thereof, the duration of the implied warranty shall be the maximum period prescribed above."
- colejohnson66 7y agoHow does this deal with things like open source licenses which explicitly state there’s no warranty, expressed or implied?
- Nextgrid 7y agoCould it be based on a sale, thus products obtained for free have no warranty? There’s also the argument that with open source code you had the chance to verify it in advance and notice any flaws, thus by obtaining the software despite that you’re acknowledging the flaws are “features” of the software.
- rahimnathwani 7y agoRemedies are only applicable to "Any buyer of consumer goods injured by a breach of the implied warranty". I suppose software might count as a consumer good when sold in tangible form (e.g. a boxed copy of TurboTax), but you're not a 'buyer' when you get software for free. And IANAL but a software licence (what you pay for when you 'buy' software online) doesn't seem like a consumer good. And even if the licence were a consumer good, the licence probably won't malfunction.
- phamilton 7y agoThe movie tommy boy has a great scene about guarantees/warranties. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4