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."'"
What's the sense in having laws if you can't apply them selectively and perniciously.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
Just shut up and take it.. Ask for more. How dare you create a product that could be misused if used inappropriately.
Now, joking aside this is really scary that the government is doing this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Except that this, the very case that's "starting it all", is also the exact reason why this is not the right way to do things. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps, as sometimes it is the actions of one person which need to be punished, but it is more often the actions of the company as a whole, the culture behind how the company operates, that needs to be addressed.
This man did nothing wrong; he sold a product that was not safe for kids to use and labeled it as not safe for kids to use. He should not be liable for the actions of the employees of the toy stores who sold them to kids, nor for the actions of the employees of the distribution houses that sold them to the toy stores who hired employees who then sold them to kids. He didn't sell them to kids himself, and he didn't sell them to toy stores where he'd only reasonably expect that they'd be sold to kids. He labeled them as not safe for kids and clearly did not intend for them to be sold to, or used by, kids. Blame all of the irresponsible parties for any children harmed by these things, for sure; let's start with the parents who bought these for their kids or left their own set where their kids could get to them (they're labeled quite clearly and should be locked away from young children, and only used by older children under close supervision, just like any other dangerous item), then the purchasing agent at the toy store who thought it would be a good idea to sell an item labeled as not safe for children in a place where things are bought primarily by and for children, then the distribution house employee(s) who thought selling unsafe items to toy stores would be a great way to make a buck. And that's where it should stop.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
How about the parents who gave their [now dead] children (read: under 13) the thing be charged with manslaughter, unless giving them other things they shouldn't have which results in death [the list is is quiter long, but includes firearms, cutlery, chemicals, etc.] is also okey-dokey.
"the vast majority are frivolous lawsuits" cite sources
This has been studied extensively. Every study I have read on this shows that judges tend to toss out the frivolous lawsuit and that the majority of cases that got to trial actual have some merit.
As long as were piercing the corporate veil, shouldn't we go after the CEO's that have cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars first? Or are government rules and regulations, and punitive actions only applicable for the little guy?
1. The product was not defective.
2. No harm was done that I have read.
3. No, the banks were not prosecuted, which makes this even more egregious.
4. He didn't make a mistake.
This is the out of control Feds doing what they do best, punish people who are creative and trying to get ahead. It is about control.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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
If it was me and I had my life's work taken from me, and now being forced into bankruptcy and poverty, I'd hold the CPSC leaders responsible.
A government without fear of the people is not a republic. Time to put the fear back into them.
"So there is a chance companies will no longer get pathetic fines and be pretty much unaccountable for this misdeeds. Individuals who made decisions within the organization will be held responsible. Good."
Um... NO.
First, you have to identify actual misdeeds. Buckyballs were NOT sold as children's toys! They were labeled that they were NOT for children.
The fact that Buckyballs were recalled at all is what is pathetic. But also of great concern. Because if the government were to win, then any company that makes cleaning products that kids get hold of and poison themselves with... or car manufacturers... or makers of power tools... anybody who sells things that are NOT children's toys could be prosecuted simply because someone let their children play with them (or negligently gave them access).
The criminals here were the adults who let children play with unsafe objects. Hell, makers of children's toys who include a label that says "Warning! Contains small parts. Not for children under 4 years old." is exempt from this kind of government harassment. Yet you're seeing someone being pursued for this when they weren't even selling children's toys! It is OUTRAGEOUS.
This is an extremely dangerous precedent and the government must lose this case. Otherwise, anybody could be prosecuted for anything, merely if some child gets hold of it. Bad, bad, bad.
Actually, that isn't even close to a logical conclusion. What it says is that nobody will be able to start a new company unless they are very, very rich. It also says that nobody will want to start a company, since if they are very rich they have little to gain and everything to lose.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Hypothesis: ...
1. Manufacturers generally get sued for all kinds of crazy reasons, when people have been stupid while using their products.
2. Manufacturers slap on "not safe for kids" and similar labels all the time, just to be safe.
3. The label loses any semantic meaning, since it is always there. People start to ignore it, and try to rely on their own judgement.
4. Parents see a box of funny little magnets. How can they be dangerous? There is lack of imagination as to what happens with more than one of those in a small child's intestines.
5.
6. Visit to the ER.
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
I even read (or heard on the radio) some expert claiming that shareholders did not "own" companies, because companies were persons and laws against slavery prevent people owning other people. Yes, really! His argument was that shareholders only owned an entitlement to some share of future profits. Nothing more.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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."
You say that as if he were selling fireworks, caustic cleaning supplies, or surplus hand grenades.
He complied, labeling the product as not for children, and not for ingestion. The same kind of warnings that show up on fireworks *and* caustic cleaning supplies. I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.
Well it seems that there is a warning on smoke greandes"DANGER-DO NOT USE HC IN CONFINED OR ENCLOSED AREAS- PERSONNEL MUST WEAR THE PROTECTIVE MASK IN ANY CONCENTRATION OF HC SMOKE" It doesn't say you can't feed it to children though.
Next time you hear about a child getting hurt with a firework, household cleaning supplies, or falling off a bicycle, be sure to remind them to sue the CEO for selling dangerous items. Don't forget to sue the CEO of every company along the entire distribution chain too.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Because if the government were to win
Unfortunately, the government already won. The case is over, the company closed down.
Now the worst part is the government wasn't satisfied with that, and they are suing the creator for basically everything he owns, despite very few injuries, and no deaths as a result of these balls.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Who gave that magnet to the kid?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
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.
Most infuriating was the commission's argument that a total recall was justified because Buckyballs have "low utility to consumers" and "are not necessary to consumers."
Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"
My kid ate one or your magnets and had to have his bowel removed is not necessarily a bogus claim.
So if your stupid crotch fruit eats some drain cleaner it's the drain cleaner manufacturers fault fault, right? No moron. It's your fault.
THEY'RE CLEARLY LABELED AS NOT FOR KIDS.
I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.
Who is John Galt?
I'm saying that if the CEO personally decides to go against the ban and people get hurt then he has to accept some responsibility.
Except that's not what happened. You would know that wasn't actually what happened if you did even a cursory look into the events as they unfolded. Your whole rant about sticking it to the CEO being good is entirely misguided.
Fucking parents, how do they work?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
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.
and you have to read all of it within ten seconds
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Only problem is, there are no misdeeds. These things were clearly labeled as not for kids. While there has been a very small number of injuries (small enough that many toys intended for children are actually more dangerous), they are clearly not the fault of the manufacturer, distributor., etc, but the fault of inattentive parents. There will always be injuries to children because of inattentive parents.
Unless you want a complete nanny-state, where everything potentially dangerous to kids is prohibited (wonder how they will get rid of all those stones just lying around, for example), you have to accept that parents are responsible for their kids safety. That includes teaching them to be careful when they are older and it also most definitely includes not letting anything dangerous lying around within their reach when they are at an age where they take everything into their mouths.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
Well, I'm of the opinion that everything in this world doesn't have to be "somebody's fault". Or more precisely; placing blame isn't necessarily very interesting or useful to solve a problem. Sometimes, it's just better to look at things as they are, objectively without judgement, to identify the most constructive course of action.
I'm certainly not trying to argue that this is the manufacturers fault. The parents shouldn't let their children play with such things, so if you must choose a single party to point at, it would probably be them. But the reality of it is that people are going to make mistakes. Not everyone is going to realise all potentials dangers all the time. Doing something as extreme as prosecuting the parents for child abuse in this situation isn't actually going to help anybody, unless they force-fed their kids magnets. And in all likelihood, those parents already got a number of sleepless nights and enough feelings of guilt to very careful selecting toys in the future, which is about as much as you can realistically hope to achieve.
From a more systemic point of view (and without having seen exactly how the warning used to read), I am guessing that the best solution to reduce the number of accidents, if that's what we want to do, would be to explain more clearly why the magnets are dangerous to children. People are usually more inclined to follow instructions if they fully understand the logic behind them. For example: "If accidentally swallowed, these magnets will get stuck in the intestines, probably tearing a hole in them. Treat them like poison. Keep them away from children." would be more effective than for example: "This is not a children's toy. Improper use can lead to injury or death."
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 problem with this train of thought is where do you draw the line? Recall the hot coffee story a number of years ago. What temperate should coffee be served and who is responsible if you drive and spill it on yourself?
Some things already have ridiculous warnings like metal ladders and "do not use near live electrical lines". Does it need to be said that metal conducts electricity and therefor if the ladder touches a live wire bad things will happen?
Everyone is looking for a multi-million dollar lawsuit and so you get product warning labels warning you that the product label warning could give you a paper cut..
The purpose of the limited-liability corporation is that corporate liabilities stop with the company's assets and do not follow into the pockets of the owners.
Certain insurance companies (Lloyds of London) do not have limited liabilities because the owners back the policies with their huge fortunes, giving you assurance the company has the funds to pay out if necessary. Some spectacular tanker and space shot losses about 10 years ago got them into trouble as some people had to sell their estates to make good.
Unless this guy was involved in some massive fraud, this isn't supposed to happen.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The box had a warning label, but not the product...
Neither do balloons, yet dozens of kids choke to death on them every year.
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?
That's why he's in trouble. High strength magnets are not a toy.
They certainly are a toy. By the way, there are other adult toys kids should not have access to --- such as hunting rifles used in hunting sports.
Firecrackers, BDSM gear, high powered laser pointers, racing cars, four wheelers/ATVs, diving boards, dirt bikes, soldering irons, CNC tools, wood carving and arc welding tools, and the list of adult toys/hobbyist products goes on and on; of adult toys that nobody should allow their kids (or kids) unfettered access to, aside from exceptional situations --- very responsible kids who first understand the dangers and are supervised, and known to be very careful and responsible.
At my local coffee shop, I frequently (as in: more than several times a week) order a pour-over. I "specify" that the hot water come from the boiling espresso machine instead of the hot tap on the Bunn machine, because the hotter water makes my fresh cup of coffee taste markedly better once it is brewed.
But do I drink it at that temperature? No, at least not very quickly. And do I hold it between my legs while driving? Fuck no.
In other news, I also check the lid on my coffee, wherever it comes from, just to make sure I don't pour the hot liquid all over myself when I take a drink.
And when I sit down to dinner, I look at the food on my fork before I cram it into my mouth. If it looks too hot (due to the copious amounts of steam rolling off), I'll take my time with it so I don't burn my mouth.
And when it's raining and I go outside, I expect to get wet.
And if I ignore a traffic signal when driving, I expect to get run into.
So what temperature can a person withstand without injury? According to a graph, 140 degrees F for less than 5 seconds.
140 degrees is very tepid coffee. 140 degrees is less than the required serving temperature for many hot foods. 140 degrees is not hot enough, yet is still dangerous to the skin.
Maybe we should require that all commercially-sold coffee be iced, and that all floors leading to such commercial coffee dispensaries be coated in thick, padded, skid-resistant rubber floors.
We should also take steak knives out of the steak houses: Someone might hurt themselves. Or at least have them sign a waiver before they're allowed to eat their T-bone (OMG! BONES IN MEAT! SOMEONE MIGHT CHOKE!).
Kid-proof tablet..
There are 216 in my set, they have all been accounted for and are sitting neatly in a 6*6*6 structure, there have been pets, infants, children and drunken people near them, but none have been lost, swallowed or used for lewt sexual acts.
It's all about being responsible and removing the stuff that isn't toys when individual who might think they are toys are around.