One Year Later, USPS Looks Into Gamefly Complaint

Last April, we discussed news that video game rental service GameFly had complained to the USPS that a large quantity of their game discs were broken in transit, accusing the postal service of giving preferential treatment to more traditional DVD rental companies like Netflix. Now, just over a year later, an anonymous reader sends word that the USPS has responded with a detailed inquiry into GameFly's situation (PDF). The inquiry's 46 questions (many of which are multi-part) cover just about everything you could imagine concerning GameFly's distribution methods. Most of them are simple, yet painstaking, in a way only government agencies can manage. Here are a few of them: "What threshold does GameFly consider to be an acceptable loss/theft rate? Please provide the research that determined this rate. ... What is the transportation cost incurred by GameFly to transport its mail from each GameFly distribution center to the postal facility used by that distribution center? ... Please describe the total cost that GameFly would incur if it expanded its distribution network to sixty or one hundred twenty locations. In your answer, please itemize costs separately. ... Does the age of a gaming DVD or the number of times played have more effect on the average life cycle of a gaming DVD?"

Comments

predictable

[Goldsmith]

Welcome to the world of lawyers, where it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, but who is in a position to be a bigger pain in the neck. This is a discovery document for the defense of USPS, not a response to an inquiry. They probably won't be issuing a response.

The USPS lawyers (in the odd world of legal ethics) probably concluded that the "right" thing to do is to pressure Gamefly to settle and admit no wrongdoing by USPS. I'm sure there are good reasons for USPS to not actually put out a public report detailing what their definition of acceptable mail handling is or how poor mail handling happens, but those are good reasons only for people who work for USPS.

Re:predictable

[mpoulton]

Welcome to the world of lawyers, where it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, but who is in a position to be a bigger pain in the neck. This is a discovery document for the defense of USPS, not a response to an inquiry. They probably won't be issuing a response.

The USPS lawyers (in the odd world of legal ethics) probably concluded that the "right" thing to do is to pressure Gamefly to settle and admit no wrongdoing by USPS. I'm sure there are good reasons for USPS to not actually put out a public report detailing what their definition of acceptable mail handling is or how poor mail handling happens, but those are good reasons only for people who work for USPS.

The original "inquiry" was not a polite request for the USPS to investigate. It was a formal complaint filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission. This is functionally a lawsuit, in the "court" of the Postal Regulatory Commission. GameFly sued the USPS demanding that they provide the same treatment to GameFly DVDs that is provided for Netflix and Blockbuster DVDs. The Postal service's response here is a discovery request, which is to be expected. However, if you read the original complaint it becomes apparent that the postal service probably already has much of this information, since the USPS and GameFly worked together for quite a long time to resolve the problem (to no avail).

Re:Is it me?

[Anonymous Coward]

find a stranger in the Alps

Re:netflix vs gamefly

[Dthief]

35. GameFly is not the only mailer to experience significant DVD breakage rates on automated mail processing equipment. In response to this phenomenon, the Postal Service has adopted a practice of manually culling out the DVD mailers of two high-volume shippers of DVDs, Netflix and Blockbuster, for special processing.

Re:netflix vs gamefly

[Artifex]

Well couple things may be in play, other than the USPS being meanies:

1) Netflix may well consider a fairly high rate of loss acceptable. Depending on the prices they have to pay for the discs, it might not matter to them. Remember that the media itself is cheap. In large runs I'd be surprised if you could get a disc to cost $0.10. So if they have a situation with the studios where they can buy the discs cheap, separate of the rental rights, it might not matter to them.

They also have arrangements (or have had in the past) where they ship DVDs they printed themselves. In situations like that, they could be even cheaper, because there's no delay in waiting for replacements from the vendors, and they could be printed at the distribution centers nearest the subscribers asking for them.

Re:Is it me?

[JesseMcDonald]

If the answer is no, then they are, by definition, not a "for-profit company".

So your definition of "for-profit company" excludes non-publicly-traded organizations, such as sole proprietorships and private partnerships? How interesting. Here I was thinking that "for-profit company" meant any company not formally classified as a non-profit organization. Or, more generally, any organization formed for the purpose of obtaining an economic profit through commerce.

The real question seems to be whether the USPS would qualify as a non-profit organization. As to that, I have no idea. Perhaps they would. Most of the proceeds do seem to be re-invested into the operation of the postal service, rather than simply accumulated or distributed back to the nominal owner (the federal government). On that score they would be considered a non-profit, to be best of my understanding, but there are other considerations with which I am not familiar.