5 ms·
> Like how else could it work? They investigate everything, spending more money than the cost of the refund? Is anyone actually arguing for fewer "easy refunds
by franga2000 5y ago
> Like how else could it work? They investigate everything, spending more money than the cost of the refund?
Is anyone actually arguing for fewer "easy refunds" and more investigation? I though the point was that given the fact that most of their refunds are handled algorithmically, they have plenty of time to handle the rest of the refunds quickly and with care.
If I don't get my order, I want my money back. If the algorith decides I can get that with no investigation required, sure, I'll take it. But if the algorithm thinks they shouldn't take the "shortcut", I still deserve my money back and a human should be dispatched to deal with it ASAP.
Algorithmically adjudicating in favor of the customer is fine - it's their money they're risking. But algorithmically adjudicating against the customer should never be allowed without a human looking things over.
- bradleyjg 5y agoAt the end of the day your remedy is to sue someone. Everything else is a courtesy shortcut.
- franga2000 5y agoI don't know about you, but where I'm from, consumer protection laws exist specifically so consumers don't have to sue in these cases. Providing a fair refund process is their legal duty, not a courtesy.
- asimpletune 5y agoTo me about how these infractions can be enforced without suing though?
- chongli 5y agoThe point is that it shouldn’t be the aggrieved consumer filing the lawsuit, it should be the powerful regulator with potential fines tied to a percentage of company revenue.
- miracle2k 5y agoI don't see regulation being the issue here. The law will oblige either of the two sides to carry the burden of proof. Either Amazon has to proof the package was delivered, or the customer has to proof it wasn't. If the other sides does not accept the proof received, it has to sue.
- macintux 5y agoYou can't prove a negative. There's effectively no way for a customer to prove a package wasn't delivered. Update: I should be clear, the shipper can prove it. The customer themselves can't without the shipper's acquiescence.
- tharkun__ 5y agoNobody can really prove it. But each side can have some supporting evidence. The shipper might be able to prove that the transport company picked up a package. Beyond that it's all hearsay if we are talking about fraudulent sellers. The transport company might have evidence of a tracking number and thus most probably an actual package making it through the system. Shipments do get lost or stolen though. No way to prove anything really. The customer can't prove it either. There are enough cases of packages with a tracking number having arrived at my and other people's doorsteps without the tracking ever showing that it happened. Why wouldn't the opposite be true? Driver just needs to scan package arrival not actually deliver. Of course there can be repercussions and I'd gather it's easier for a package to be stolen off other parts of the delivery chain. Anyway in this case both the shipper and customer have 'proof' / no proof to various degrees and in reality something 'fell off the truck'. It's all about being convincing enough to whoever will be adjudicating this but 100% proof is impossible. The closest the customer could get I think would be 24h Video surveillance of their front entrance. No motion detection, just 24h continuous tape.
- asimpletune 5y agoI wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise at all. I literally just don’t understand how consumer protection laws are supposed to work, and was wondering if the parent knew of some way to enforce what’s right without having to take them to court.
- franga2000 5y agoYou report them to the relevant regulatory body.
- heavyset_go 5y agoMost states' Attorneys General offices have Consumer Protection branches, as well.
- mlyle 5y agoIf they make you sue when the case is clear-cut, good regulatory regimes charge punitive damages to discourage the customer-hostile behavior.
- r00fus 5y agoWhy is Amazon allowed to conflate inventory (Fulfilled by Amazon) without any legal issues? It almost seems they’re above the law. Why would they be legally required to follow customer protection laws?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cortesoft 5y agoThis assumes that by investigating you will determine the truth. Often times, even if they spent a ton of time investigating, they aren’t going to be able to determine who was at fault.
- franga2000 5y agoIdk, if the tracking doesn't say "picked up by recipient", a refund should be given no questions asked. It's then up to the seller and shipping company to figure out who screwed up amongst themselves.
- jquery 5y agoYou can purchase package insurance if you’re willing to go that far.
- mlyle 5y agoHow do I purchase package insurance on something Amazon ships to me? In theory, Amazon's T&C's attempt to pass on the risk of loss to me after delivery of the item to a carrier. In practice, this is far less clear, because of merchant agreements / cardholder agreements and overall FTC regulation of goods sold directly to consumers. But it may be moot, anyways: if Amazon decides to screw me, they have a bunch of digital assets that they hold hostage and will remove my access to if I initiate a legal dispute or chargeback, even if I'm in the right.
- franga2000 5y agoIs there anything preventing you from having separate amazon account for digital assets and physical orders? That seems like almost a requirement give what I've heard about them in many comments throughout this thread.
- mlyle 5y agoAmazon routinely disables 'related accounts' when suspending an account. In practice, they know who you are on each, because of payment verification, etc. So I'm not sure how surefire of a solution this is.