4 ms·

This is probably not a smart question, but why isn't Amazon sued or otherwise held accountable if this happens repeatedly?

andrewinardeer 4y ago
Who wants to face Amazon lawyers?
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  A state agency? It seems quite unreasonable to expect individual customers to face such risk and that is exactly why consumer protection agencies (not sure about the English translation of Verbraucherzentrale) exist. For instance, when the emission scandal by VW happened such an agency sued and won: https://www.vzbv.de/vw-klage https://www.vzbv.de/vw-klage
ninth_ant 4y ago
Because you get your money back in full if you ask?
- starbugs 4y ago
  Not sure if you are joking? I think we all know that the nature of the scam makes it very unlikely for most people to detect that they were defrauded within the 30 days money back guarantee time frame.
  - ninth_ant 4y ago
    I'm not joking. Are there lots of examples of people who were defrauded by a completely fake product like this, called amazon 31 days later, and were denied a refund? I've not seen any discussions of this. My understanding of the scam is that the victims wouldn't notice for a long time, or even fully understand that they were scammed. Given they are buying from a product category that doesn't actually exist, they are not tech-savvy and would just use it in the inferior capacity or throw it away assuming they did something wrong.
    - starbugs 4y ago
      So are you saying that the scam is actually ok, because in theory Amazon would refund indefinitely into the future, which wouldn't happen, because users are not asking for a refund anyway? How does this make it ok? I'm not sure if I can follow the argumentation here.
      - ninth_ant 4y ago
        I’m not saying it’s okay. It hurts consumers — not ok - and likely hurts amazon too in the longer run. I was answering a question that someone posed — that people aren’t suing amazon because then ones who care enough to sue are instead getting their money back. What damages would they sue for? If I’m wrong and at 31 days amazon refuses to give money back for a fraudulent product like this, then perhaps there’d be basis for a lawsuit. But I’ve not heard of that happening, and I’ve read a decent number of articles about this issue.
        starbugs 4y ago
        Yes, that was me asking the question. Thanks for the answer. I think now I understand where you're coming from. Wouldn't competitors have a good reason to sue? The damages appear obvious.

andrewinardeer 4y ago

Who wants to face Amazon lawyers?

diffeomorphism 4y ago
A state agency? It seems quite unreasonable to expect individual customers to face such risk and that is exactly why consumer protection agencies (not sure about the English translation of Verbraucherzentrale) exist. For instance, when the emission scandal by VW happened such an agency sued and won: https://www.vzbv.de/vw-klage https://www.vzbv.de/vw-klage

ninth_ant 4y ago

Because you get your money back in full if you ask?

starbugs 4y ago
Not sure if you are joking? I think we all know that the nature of the scam makes it very unlikely for most people to detect that they were defrauded within the 30 days money back guarantee time frame.
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  I'm not joking. Are there lots of examples of people who were defrauded by a completely fake product like this, called amazon 31 days later, and were denied a refund? I've not seen any discussions of this. My understanding of the scam is that the victims wouldn't notice for a long time, or even fully understand that they were scammed. Given they are buying from a product category that doesn't actually exist, they are not tech-savvy and would just use it in the inferior capacity or throw it away assuming they did something wrong.
  - starbugs 4y ago
    So are you saying that the scam is actually ok, because in theory Amazon would refund indefinitely into the future, which wouldn't happen, because users are not asking for a refund anyway? How does this make it ok? I'm not sure if I can follow the argumentation here.
    - ninth_ant 4y ago
      I’m not saying it’s okay. It hurts consumers — not ok - and likely hurts amazon too in the longer run. I was answering a question that someone posed — that people aren’t suing amazon because then ones who care enough to sue are instead getting their money back. What damages would they sue for? If I’m wrong and at 31 days amazon refuses to give money back for a fraudulent product like this, then perhaps there’d be basis for a lawsuit. But I’ve not heard of that happening, and I’ve read a decent number of articles about this issue.
      - starbugs 4y ago
        Yes, that was me asking the question. Thanks for the answer. I think now I understand where you're coming from. Wouldn't competitors have a good reason to sue? The damages appear obvious.