3 ms·
This is why consumer protection needs laws, but also laws that are effective. It isn't just about laws existing: In this case, it sure ain't legal for Newegg t
by zwaps 5y ago
This is why consumer protection needs laws, but also laws that are effective.
It isn't just about laws existing:
In this case, it sure ain't legal for Newegg to sell a broken motherboard as working, and then decline the RMA.
However, a user that ain't Steve from Gamer's Nexus will have no legal recourse that is effective.
In the EU, this issue has been tackled explicitly: Within the first six month of a sale, the seller has to prove that the item was damaged by the customer. This burden of proof reversal essentially makes the law effective (in this instance).
So would we get by relying on reputation?
As long as the chance of getting a damaged item isn't overwhelming, people will still buy (see Amazon, which sells a huge amount of fake items without losing customers).
It's easy to see that there's an mixed-strategy equilibrium here, and this equilibrium includes sellers sending out a certain percentage of broken or fake items to maximize profits. Sellers trying to maximize customer satisfaction is likely not the equilibrium.
In other places in this thread we learned that customers are now being tracked as to what they return. Perhaps right now, this is for fraud prevention, sure. But if the data is there, it would be trivial for any good Data Science/ Economics team to maximize profits from sending out some semi-broken or used items here and there.
All in all, we need effective customer protection. A similar argument holds for privacy. However, both the US and the EU have enacted consumer protection or privacy laws that are ineffective.
- ciupicri 5y agoAccording to what European Union law?
- zwaps 5y agoIt is actually 1 year, not 6 months. I believe it's this one: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019L0771&from=DE https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... codified in Germany as §477 BGB (other countries accordingly) edit: Article 11 Burden of proof 1. Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within one year of the time when the goods were delivered shall be presumed to have existed at the time when the goods were delivered, unless proved otherwise or unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity. This paragraph shall also apply to goods with digital elements. 2. Instead of the one-year period laid down in paragraph 1, Member States may maintain or introduce a period of two years from the time when the goods were delivered.
- mhitza 5y agoI found the reference in Article 11 > 1. Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within one year of the time when the goods were delivered shall be presumed to have existed at the time when the goods were delivered, unless proved otherwise or unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity. This paragraph shall also apply to goods with digital elements. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2019.136.01.0028.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2019:136:TOC https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:...
- mijoharas 5y agoThe law is stated here[0]. There is actually a required guarantee of 2 years, but within the first 6 months, any problems are assumed to have been there when you received the item. After 6 months you may need to prove that the defect existed when you bought it. [0] https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm#:~:text=Free%20of%20charge%2C%202%2Dyear%20guarantee%20for%20all%20goods&text=If%20goods%20you%20bought%20anywhere,reduction%20or%20a%20full%20refund https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua....