4 ms·

Amazon argues it’s not liable for product that severely injured toddler

29 points by ProAm 6y ago

kazinator 6y ago
> Amazon argued yesterday before the Texas Supreme Court that it should not be held liable for defective products sold through its site. Is this east Texas, where patent trolls can buy judges? :) > The toddler’s mother purchased the knockoff Apple TV remote from a third-party seller called “USA Shopping.” After the battery burned her daughter, she sought to find out who was behind the Amazon storefront, discovering that it was run by one “Hu Xi Jie” out of Shenzhen, China. Neither the mother nor Amazon has been able to locate or contact Hu Xi Jie. Amazon 150% liable. They know they have this problem and have had it for years, yet they continue to allow foreign operators to pose as local, and to misrepresent their origin and the authenticity of products.
transtrain 6y ago
Pay no taxes, take no responsibility, move all jobs to China. Pollute the planet with ships and planes bringing the junk to the rest of the world. The kind of company progressives love.
- Trias11 6y ago
  Force americans to pay more taxes, take no responsibility, kiss China. Who matches this description?
  - will4274 6y ago
    Bill Clinton? Most American presidents starting from Nixon and going until Trump?
    - Trias11 6y ago
      Try to think beyond Trump? You're almost there.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - DrScump 6y ago
      It was Clinton who granted China permanent MFN/NTR trade status, less than a month before he became a lame duck. That's where it went off the rails.
  - transtrain 6y ago
    It's the world at this point. China has all the politicians and global companies in on it. Amazon can't make a penny selling shit from arizona to Vermont. It's also actually libel then. Remember it is NOT illegal in China to defraud somebody or some company outside the country. That's not a crime in China. That's why amazon loves to import for China companies. They can break all the patents, copyright and designs without any worries. "The China Hustle". Watch that before you buy your Alibaba shares or invest in China economic miracle.
Trias11 6y ago
For reselling original products - I'd say manufacturer is more liable. For peddling fakes and knockoffs - amazon first, then reseller and manufacturer of crap should be liable. Everyone knows that amazon is peddling fakes, cultivating fake reviews and ratings and takes zero-to-negative effort to remedy any of that. Amazon gets the full legal bill and they can settle it with their respective source entities and "partners"
prepend 6y ago
I think they’re going to lose this. One of the most basic concepts we covered in contract law in the crappy undergraduate business school was the tort responsibility through the entire lifecycle of a product. If I have a lemonade stand and sell defective lemonade, I’m liable for it. Even the defect was caused by the lemonade mix, even if the defect was caused by the red dye #5 manufacturer. We’re all liable, not just the root.
- buescher 6y ago
  Amazon's won these cases (where the defective product came from a seller on amazon) before on the premise that they're not your lemonade stand, they're the flea market where you set up your lemonade stand.
  - prepend 6y ago
    I guess we’ll see. From a customer perspective they are the flea market and the Walmart next to the flea market and a bunch of stalls inside the flea market. There’s no reason why they can’t vet all participants and stand behind their products. It’s not like it’s some onerous process. Walmart does it. They just have to pay out when something harms a toddler.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      > Walmart does it. Walmart has 75M SKUs. Amazon has 350M. For many products Amazon never sees one - it only provides a webfront for vendors. Would WordPress be liable for a vendor products using them as a web store?
      - prepend 6y ago
        I believe the tort liability is about defect. So if you can’t control quality, don’t have so many skus. I’m not sure what the difference is between selling and using something to sell. Amazon sells through Amazon.com, even though they allow third parties. I don’t think Wordpress sells under a single storefront. Maybe the better question is whether eBay is liable when someone sells a defective item.
hedora 6y ago
This is overdue. A product we bought on Amazon (that was subsequently pulled) almost burned our house down. It’s from a no-name manufacturer, and we did not receive a recall notice (which Amazon could have trivially provided). We reported the issue, and didn’t hear back.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
Any sympathy I might have had for Amazon is blackholed, due to their reviews being so profoundly compromised. eg: 5k positive reviews for a different product than the listing
mjbeswick 6y ago
In this case the a toddler swallowed a lithium ion button cell, so I wonder how how this counts as a products being defective as those batteries are designed to be removable? If the woman I bought some of the same batteries off of Amazon and her child swallowed one of the batteries, surely Amazon wouldn't be liable. So why are there in this case?
alanfranz 6y ago
I'm not sure what's the point of such case. Aren't there consumer-safety certifications in the US? If the product passed such certifications, why should Amazon be liable? OTOH, if the product is fake, or Amazon is selling products without such certifications, then they should be liable. Unless it's a 3rd party seller that handles everything - but then, Amazon should vet sellers a bit (how to contact them? who are they, really? etc). I expect a virtual storefront in my own country to abide to my country's laws.

29 points by ProAm 6y ago

> Amazon argued yesterday before the Texas Supreme Court that it should not be held liable for defective products sold through its site. Is this east Texas, where patent trolls can buy judges? :) > The toddler’s mother purchased the knockoff Apple TV remote from a third-party seller called “USA Shopping.” After the battery burned her daughter, she sought to find out who was behind the Amazon storefront, discovering that it was run by one “Hu Xi Jie” out of Shenzhen, China. Neither the mother nor Amazon has been able to locate or contact Hu Xi Jie. Amazon 150% liable. They know they have this problem and have had it for years, yet they continue to allow foreign operators to pose as local, and to misrepresent their origin and the authenticity of products.

transtrain 6y ago

Pay no taxes, take no responsibility, move all jobs to China. Pollute the planet with ships and planes bringing the junk to the rest of the world. The kind of company progressives love.

Trias11 6y ago
Force americans to pay more taxes, take no responsibility, kiss China. Who matches this description?
- will4274 6y ago
  Bill Clinton? Most American presidents starting from Nixon and going until Trump?
  - Trias11 6y ago
    Try to think beyond Trump? You're almost there.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - DrScump 6y ago
    It was Clinton who granted China permanent MFN/NTR trade status, less than a month before he became a lame duck. That's where it went off the rails.
- transtrain 6y ago
  It's the world at this point. China has all the politicians and global companies in on it. Amazon can't make a penny selling shit from arizona to Vermont. It's also actually libel then. Remember it is NOT illegal in China to defraud somebody or some company outside the country. That's not a crime in China. That's why amazon loves to import for China companies. They can break all the patents, copyright and designs without any worries. "The China Hustle". Watch that before you buy your Alibaba shares or invest in China economic miracle.

Trias11 6y ago

For reselling original products - I'd say manufacturer is more liable. For peddling fakes and knockoffs - amazon first, then reseller and manufacturer of crap should be liable. Everyone knows that amazon is peddling fakes, cultivating fake reviews and ratings and takes zero-to-negative effort to remedy any of that. Amazon gets the full legal bill and they can settle it with their respective source entities and "partners"

prepend 6y ago

I think they’re going to lose this. One of the most basic concepts we covered in contract law in the crappy undergraduate business school was the tort responsibility through the entire lifecycle of a product. If I have a lemonade stand and sell defective lemonade, I’m liable for it. Even the defect was caused by the lemonade mix, even if the defect was caused by the red dye #5 manufacturer. We’re all liable, not just the root.

buescher 6y ago
Amazon's won these cases (where the defective product came from a seller on amazon) before on the premise that they're not your lemonade stand, they're the flea market where you set up your lemonade stand.
- prepend 6y ago
  I guess we’ll see. From a customer perspective they are the flea market and the Walmart next to the flea market and a bunch of stalls inside the flea market. There’s no reason why they can’t vet all participants and stand behind their products. It’s not like it’s some onerous process. Walmart does it. They just have to pay out when something harms a toddler.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    > Walmart does it. Walmart has 75M SKUs. Amazon has 350M. For many products Amazon never sees one - it only provides a webfront for vendors. Would WordPress be liable for a vendor products using them as a web store?
    - prepend 6y ago
      I believe the tort liability is about defect. So if you can’t control quality, don’t have so many skus. I’m not sure what the difference is between selling and using something to sell. Amazon sells through Amazon.com, even though they allow third parties. I don’t think Wordpress sells under a single storefront. Maybe the better question is whether eBay is liable when someone sells a defective item.

hedora 6y ago

This is overdue. A product we bought on Amazon (that was subsequently pulled) almost burned our house down. It’s from a no-name manufacturer, and we did not receive a recall notice (which Amazon could have trivially provided). We reported the issue, and didn’t hear back.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

Any sympathy I might have had for Amazon is blackholed, due to their reviews being so profoundly compromised. eg: 5k positive reviews for a different product than the listing

mjbeswick 6y ago

In this case the a toddler swallowed a lithium ion button cell, so I wonder how how this counts as a products being defective as those batteries are designed to be removable? If the woman I bought some of the same batteries off of Amazon and her child swallowed one of the batteries, surely Amazon wouldn't be liable. So why are there in this case?

alanfranz 6y ago

I'm not sure what's the point of such case. Aren't there consumer-safety certifications in the US? If the product passed such certifications, why should Amazon be liable? OTOH, if the product is fake, or Amazon is selling products without such certifications, then they should be liable. Unless it's a 3rd party seller that handles everything - but then, Amazon should vet sellers a bit (how to contact them? who are they, really? etc). I expect a virtual storefront in my own country to abide to my country's laws.