Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Gov't Still Fighting the Man Behind Buckyballs; Guess Who's Winning?
usacoder writes with news of Craig Zucker, former CEO of the company behind Buckyballs, the popular neodymium magnet toys that were banned by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in July 2012. Zucker ran a brief campaign to drum up opposition to the government's ban, but it didn't turn out to be enough. Unfortunately for Zucker, the story didn't end there. Despite the magnets being labeled as not for kids, the Commission filed a motion to find him personally liable for the costs of a product recall, estimated at around $57 million.
"Given the fact that Buckyballs have now long been off the market, the attempt to go after Mr. Zucker personally raises the question of retaliation for his public campaign against the commission. Mr. Zucker won't speculate about the commission's motives. 'It's very selective and very aggressive,' he says. ... Mr. Zucker says his treatment at the hands of the commission should alarm fellow entrepreneurs: 'This is the beginning. It starts with this case. If you play out what happens to me, then the next thing you'll have is personal-injury lawyers saying "you conducted the actions of the company, you were the company."'"
no, thats NOT good. that means that you can be personally sued for anything that goes on with the company. imagine you had a startup ladder company and you personally got sued for 100M dollars because your ladder caused injury to some dumbass who set it up upside down. you think im being silly? you do know why they have all those stickers on the ladder telling you how to use it dont you? it is because the companies LOST a lawsuit for that very reason. it would be totally ridiculous to fine a person for the actions or products of a company, even if that person created or is in charge of the company.
DealExtreme.com - it's where I've been getting mine from since this asshattery started.
http://dx.com/s/magnet+balls
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
No, the company was told to come up with a corrective action plan to deal with the danger which the Consumer Product Safety Board thought that the product posed The CPSB gave them a two week deadline or face a lawsuit. In the meantime, contrary to precedent, the CPSB contacted retailers directly. The CPSB filed lawsuit the morning after the corrective action plan was filed (meaning the CPSB had not had time to review the plan before they submitted the lawsuit).
In response to the lawsuit, the CEO of the company launched a PR campaign to attempt to raise public awareness and political pressure to save his business. When the PR campaign failed, the CEO dissolved the company (since the CPSB had essentially outlawed their only product). Oh, and by the way, my understanding of the legality of the situation is that it was legal to continue selling the Buckyballs until the CPSB got a court ruling in their favor.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Except that the government had not banned them. The government started the process of banning them. There were still several steps to go before it actually banned them. The company had no customers by the time the government had actually banned them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The sad thing is, it wasn't marketed towards children, yet it seems safer than party balloons, which are marketed towards children.
One of the few injuries (not deaths, like we have with balloons) from Buckyballs was the ingestion after someone put them on a cake. At some point you need to give up trying to protect people......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.
As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.
I'm in complete agreement with you. Ever since the early 90's the world has moved towards a "its not my fault because" type attitude. Its not my fault that little sally is a b*tch and failing school, she has ADHD/Aspergers....
I've got three kids, and one had a set of buckyball magnets. I gave them to a 15 year old as he was old enough to know he shouldn't eat them. When they were in the "everything goes into the mouth" phase i didn't give them powerful magnets. I bought age-appropriate toys to avoid this exact problem. It should be common sense that at a certain age you need to watch the kids and protect them from themselves.
Combine the "it wasn't my fault attitude" with the ability to sue for a lot more then if you won an average lottery and you have a real mess on your hands.
He marketed them as toys for adults, clearly labeled as not for kids.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Three points (from the article itself):
1) Zucker did not market buckyballs. The company, of which he is CEO, marketed them.
2) Zucker may have been the CEO of the LLC, but under the current laws there is no excuse for the regulatory commission going after a single person, rather than the company that he ran.
3) The company clearly *did* consider the risks of this product, as they originally marketed them as 13+. His company went on to be even more clear when it became obvious that idiots cannot comprehend what problems magnets can cause.
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
The box had a warning label, but not the product, and unlike drain cleaner the product does not stay in the box, it's designed to be stuck to things.
Neither do tacks or dozens of other things that aren't for children. Isn't it pretty common knowledge that if it will fit in their mouth count on a kid eating it? I don't have kids and I know that. If the frigging box says not for children I'm going to take it out of the box and THEN assume it's safe for children. That's ridiculous. From what I've seen of buckyballs there isn't room to put the warning on the balls themselves where it would actually be readable.
In addition they then enhanced the buckyball line by introducing a range of candy colours, (oranges, pink, red, blue) from memory, the orange looked particularly delicious. The drugs industry goes to some effort to try to differentiate their pills from candy, buckyball were going in the opposite direction, it was asking for trouble.
Yeah, he made colors so more kids would eat them. I don't understand the logic here. The colors mean you can do more interesting things with them. Heaven forbid they add value to there product. They do the same thing with tacks.
Also having watched adults play with buckyballs, they often try and make an earring, so I can imagine the following , kid A places a ball either side of their ear "look lets scare mom that I got a peircing" kid B goes one better and places one either side of their tongue"
THE BOX SAID THEY ARE NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN. So who's fault is it when the parent gives them to the kids?
Given this I understand why they product was banned, they were potentially dangerous
Damn near everything is potentially dangerous. These are no more dangerous than thousands of other things out there. Know how many kids are killed in cars every year? Yet no one does a damn thing to address that problem. It's always just an accident, someone else's fault.
Who is John Galt?