Slashdot Mirror


Family Sues Amazon After Counterfeit Hoverboard Catches Fire, Destroys Home (wtsp.com)

Three weeks after unboxing a hoverboard, it burst into flames. But is Amazon partly to blame? tripleevenfall quotes The Tennessean: A Nashville family whose $1 million home was destroyed earlier this year in a fire caused by a hoverboard toy is suing Amazon saying the retail giant knowingly sold a dangerous product... The lawsuit says the seller of the hoverboard listed online, "W-Deals," is a sham organization that is registered to an apartment in New York City that has not responded to requests from lawyers in the case. It alleges the family was sold a counterfeit product from China instead of a brand with a Samsung lithium ion battery they believed they were buying from Amazon . It says Tennessee product liability law holds a seller responsible if the manufacturer cannot be found.

253 comments

  1. Genuine Samsung Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not sure that's really an improvement...??

    1. Re:Genuine Samsung Battery by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Good grief - they should be THANKING Amazon! A genuine Samsung battery could've taken out the whole neighborhood!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Genuine Samsung Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? I have lot's of devices with removable Li-ion batteries and none of them have been an issue.

      In fact, my phone is the EXCEPTION with the fixed battery. I'm not sure what makes the phone some type of special case?

    3. Re:Genuine Samsung Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the fookin XML mate that's what!

    4. Re:Genuine Samsung Battery by RuffMasterD · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pfft. I don't want some cheap knock-off Chinese explosion. I have standards. Genuine Samsung batteries burn hotter for longer thanks to rare earth minerals.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    5. Re:Genuine Samsung Battery by ls671 · · Score: 1

      He he, internally, we refer to this strategy as "The phone is the battery". So there you go, you have replaceable batteries. Stop whining now ;-)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    6. Re:Genuine Samsung Battery by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Can't you see? Same principle as FPU merging into the CPU chip.

      The optional phone hardware has merged into the battery,

      Hehe, we can really make people buy and believe into anything, hehehee,

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  2. Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Amazon wasn't the seller. Their opening of their platform to 3rd parties is what almost made me stop using them. If I want to buy from Joe Schmoe there is ebay. Amazon should not allow 3rd party sellers, plain and simple

    1. Re:Except by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since Amazon opened their platform to third parties, Amazon is almost certainly providing "material assistance" (or whatever the proper legal phrase is) to those sellers. Without Amazon, it is far less likely buyers would've had access to that seller.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Except by sexconker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amazon lists it on their storefront. Amazon handles the financial transaction. Amazon profits off of each sale. Amazon often ships the thing out to you even if it's a third party. Amazon is supposed to vet the 3rd parties they work with. Amazon is on the hook.

    3. Re:Except by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative
      The grocery store wasn't the seller. Nestle was the seller of the chocolate bar I ate.

      Nope, law almost universally agrees, the person you give the money to in order to get the item is the seller. Note, you don't pay eBay for your wins (not including any 3rd party payment services owned by eBay). eBay connects you with a seller, not doesn't directly take payment and dispatch the item, as Amazon (and you supermarket) does.

      Amazon should not allow 3rd party sellers, plain and simple

      Not without some vetting, or for limited products (like self-published books).

    4. Re:Except by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Amazon wasn't the seller. Their opening of their platform to 3rd parties is what almost made me stop using them.

      Huh? Was somebody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy from Amazon third party sellers?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huh? Was somebody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy from Amazon third party sellers?

      The big problem is that you may attempt to buy the item "Sold by Amazon" and wind up with a 3rd party seller's item anyway. To save warehouse space, Amazon has started commingling their own direct fulfillment items in the same bins as 3rd party sellers' products. When you place an order, the order picker (or a robot) just grabs one from the bin and ships it to you. Whether you get a legitimate item sourced directly by Amazon, or some knockoff piece of junk supplied by a 3rd party, is luck of the draw.

    6. Re:Except by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Yes. I am guessing you never bought an Amazon Alexia... She will threaten to kill you if you dont buy things.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Except by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Amazon should not allow 3rd party sellers, plain and simple

      Not without some vetting, or for limited products (like self-published books).

      Even if Amazon vets, what's to stop shady sellers from acting all legit then shipping something inferior to the products they showed to Amazon? Amazon would end up as the bad guy because they were their ones who gave their seal of approval. Never going to happen.

      When something is fashionable and expensive at Xmas an evil seller can make money and vanish before anybody figures out what's going on. There's no way for Amazon to stop that.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Except by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Amazon is supposed to vet the 3rd parties they work with.

      Says who? Is eBay also supposed to vet 3rd parties? What about Craigslist?

      Amazon is on the hook.

      Says who?

    9. Re:Except by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Depends on who is on the bill of sale. If I see "Amazon.com" on my credit card statement, Amazon sold it to me. In Craigslist case, CL is not selling anything through their site, they're just listing. E-Bay is a bidding site that also makes it clear who you are actually purchasing from but depending on how they handle the sales, E-Bay COULD be on the hook. Amazon will handle all sales for sellers including warehousing and shipping, Amazon is a store just as much as Wal-Mart is.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    10. Re:Except by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Even if Amazon vets, what's to stop shady sellers from acting all legit then shipping something inferior to the products they showed to Amazon? Amazon would end up as the bad guy because they were their ones who gave their seal of approval. .

      Works for me, Amazon is "the bad guy" in most scenarios. They're the 90s walmart, and are working hard to kill other businesses.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    11. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed completely. But, just as eBay used semantic hair-splitting and legal trickery to escape the responsibilities of auctioneers, Amazon will do the same to escape the responsibilities of being a store.

      What is morally right, and what the law says, differ in direct proportion to how much money is involved.

    12. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when you purchase an item from a grocery store and you get sick, the store is not liable, the manufacturer is. When there are product recalls amd lawsuits because of food poisoning, no one sues Vons, Albertsons, etc. The suit and all fines go to the company that made the product.

    13. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So if I see a creditcard processor on my statement, that processor sold it to me? Surely not, they only were taking care of the moneytranfser part of the total transaction. Amazon does the same, with a little bit more: supplying the seller the address to deliver to.

    14. Re:Except by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been surprised by how many reports there've been about counterfeit products being sold on Amazon. I understand that they're brokering sales for 3rd parties, but you'd think there'd be processes for evaluating new sellers and removing bad actors.

    15. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The big problem is that you may attempt to buy the item "Sold by Amazon" and wind up with a 3rd party seller's item anyway. To save warehouse space, Amazon has started commingling their own direct fulfillment items in the same bins as 3rd party sellers' products. When you place an order, the order picker (or a robot) just grabs one from the bin and ships it to you. Whether you get a legitimate item sourced directly by Amazon, or some knockoff piece of junk supplied by a 3rd party, is luck of the draw.

      I think this has been going on in one form or another for some time. It seems that if Amazon is out of an item, and there's another brand/third party item they think is equivalent, they'll ship you one of those instead. Nicely, if the other item is half the price, they don't adjust your bill. Wouldn't want to confuse you. ;-)

      It's sad how far we seem to have regressed when it comes to consumer protection. Any more, I assume the really large retailers (Amazon, big box home centers, etc) are cheating me. If I'm buying something and I don't mind cheap and cheesy (it happens), I'll buy from them for the convenience and sometimes lower price. Otherwise, I'll try to find a local business to buy from, or a smaller online retailer who seems large enough to be trustworthy but not so large they can afford to screw their customers.

      I'm a cynical bastard by nature, but I was surprised at how much higher quality the things I buy often turn out to be, often even within the same brand (not sure what's behind that, but it's happened several times).

      Caveat emptor indeed.

    16. Re:Except by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is eBay also supposed to vet 3rd parties? What about Craigslist?

      Those services make no pretense of being the seller. In some cases, Amazon redirects you to another site, or makes it clear that Amazon themselves don't have the product and offer you a list of 3rd party sellers' Amazon storefront. In those cases, you can argue that Amazon has reduced responsibility. Sometimes the page lists a 3rd party as being the seller, but if you don't pay attention to the small print, you would think you were just buying from Amazon. At other times it says that the order is being fulfilled by Amazon, though it's not clear whether they're buying products directly from the manufacturer or there's some 3rd party in the supply chain.

      Either way, if I can't have confidence that the products I'm buying on Amazon are genuine, I'm going to buy a lot fewer things on Amazon. I would suspect that I'm not alone.

    17. Re:Except by slacktide · · Score: 1

      Don't EVER buy Gillette razor blades from Amazon. People have even reported getting fake blades when they are listed as "Sold & Shipped by Amazon." Boy will they ever tear up your face...

    18. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you fuck up a razor blade? i think it would cost more to cut corners.

    19. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why anybody would buy Gillette blades at all. Astra is the way to go.

    20. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be willing to then accept that torrent site operators are providing "material assistance" in copyright infringement by providing a place for people to find pirated content?

    21. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not true. That depends entirely on the situation. If a recall has happened and the supermarket failed to take the items from the shelves then they are liable. If the manufacturer can't be found or located then again they are liable as they have a duty of care for the goods they stock and sell.

    22. Re:Except by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You assume vetting is just examining dedicated demo product. These days, making sure they are sueable is more likely useful. Amazon 3rd party sellers lets the same person set up 1000 shell identities and sell the same fraudulent item from whichever sell isn't shut down yet. A physical address (verfiied), a business license (verified), and business insurance (verified) wouldn't be too hard for a seller to come up with, and Amazon to verify, and would eliminate 99.44% of the scammers.

      So what stops them from scamming Amazon buyers? Amazon has your home address, and the desire to sue you if you defraud its customers. They can't stop someone willing to use their home address to commit mail fraud from. But they can certainly aid in the prosecution of them, which they can't do now.

    23. Re: Except by cunina · · Score: 1

      Roads are public goods. Amazon is not.

    24. Re: Except by cunina · · Score: 1

      For one thing, leaving off the platinum plating. That's what makes most razor blades good for more than a single shave.

    25. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, my straight edge Solingen surely doesn't have platinum plating and is definitely multi use

    26. Re:Except by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Don't forget that ebay owns Paypal and some auctions only accept payment through Paypal. Seems like that scenario makes ebay identical to amazon.

    27. Re: Except by Calydor · · Score: 1

      What if they were transported along a toll road at some point?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    28. Re: Except by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      most toll roads are owned by the state.

    29. Re: Except by Calydor · · Score: 1

      You say most. Let's assume for this particular exercise it's one of the apparently few privately owned ones.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    30. Re: Except by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Fully private or one of leased ones?

    31. Re:Except by harperska · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on if Amazon was acting as the Merchant of Record or the Seller of Record. The MoR is a 3rd party entity who is financially liable for the transaction, allowing the original retailer to sell in multiple regions without having to worry about tax and currency issues. The MoR assumes the financial risk for chargebacks etc., but not liability for the product itself.

      The Seller of Record is a 3rd party that actually owns the complete transaction. In effect, the original retailer sells the product to the SoR, who then resells it to the buyer. The SoR therefore takes complete legal ownership and liability of the whole transaction.

    32. Re:Except by rednip · · Score: 1

      Ah, 'the slippery slope' argument. Get back to us when you have a real world example that doesn't ignore the typical rules of commerce.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    33. Re:Except by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention they are allowing tons and tons of fakes and shoddy merchandise to be sold with pretty much ZERO vetting. I have seen in just my shopping there fake flash cards and sticks, shoddily rebuilt laptop batteries being sold as new product, fake mikes/guitars/amps, products that could easily not just rip someone off but seriously maim or kill. You look and there are dozens of complaints and...Amazon don't do shit apparently.

      So I'm sorry fanboys but I like Amazon, have bought thousands of dollars in gear from Amazon (NEVER from their third parties) and the computer I'm typing this on was 100% built from parts I got from them but since they have allowed third parties? They have become a real minefield with tons of shoddy shit that I doubt even eBay would allow. I can easily see how someone who didn't know that you can't trust the fact that you are on a site that clearly says "Amazon" does NOT mean you are actually buying from Amazon could get a seriously dangerous product thinking they were buying the real deal. Hell you can't even go by price because tons of them are trying to pass the fakes off as real and thus charge real prices for them!

      So this is 100% Amazon's fault. They opened the floodgates to the scammers, even allow the scammers to use their warehouses and distribution, and get a cut of every fake and shoddy product sold, so I don't see how they can argue they are not responsible when they are the ones that allowed the scammers to flourish and aided them in every step along the way.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    34. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon is just a storefront for the 3rd parties. If you're going to hold Amazon liable then you can also hold the credit card companies liable and the warehousing contractor and the shipping contractor, etc.. because they all facilitated the transaction. Clearly that's rubbish, which is why this lawsuit is also rubbish.

    35. Re:Except by threephaseboy · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that ebay owns Paypal

      Not since 2015.

      --
      .
    36. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if you don't pay attention to the small print, you would think you were just buying from Amazon"

      First of all, there is no small print. Every product that is fulfilled by a third party it says so right under the Add To Cart button. Secondly, even if there was small print it's the consumer's responsibility to understand the contract they are entering into. But regardless, Amazon makes it very clear when a product is coming from a 3rd party. All I see here is a money grab.

    37. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What good are those other businesses doing?

    38. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU tard. That wasn't even a half-decent troll. Try harder.

    39. Re:Except by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Amazon is supposed to vet the 3rd parties they work with.

      Says who? Is eBay also supposed to vet 3rd parties? What about Craigslist?

      Amazon is on the hook.

      Says who?

      Says who?

      Says Amazon. Amazon has an actively policed (so they claim) program for 3rd party sellers. There are eligibility requirements, application processes, and varying terms based on on what you're selling, how you're listing it, your volume, etc.

      The truth of the matter is Amazon knowingly and eagerly welcomes fraudulent listings for bogus products from 3rd party scammers because on the whole, it's profitable for Amazon.

    40. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible the law would conclude they made reasonable efforts then.

    41. Re: Except by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Razor blades are mostly made from stainless steel, and chromium is what makes stainless steel stainless. Expensive platinum has the same harness as steel, and its use in razor blades would be pointless. FWIW, titanium doesn't hold an edge well; it makes a poor razor blade.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    42. Re:Except by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      The steel is a ribbon run through edge grinders, hones, and polishers, then coated to reduce friction. From this ribbon blades are stamped (or maybe laser cut or plasma cut) and they are sharp and ready for assembly. If you skipped honing, polishing and coating you would save money, but the razor would grab and nick do to it's rough (not so much to the naked eye) cutting edge surface.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    43. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy, we're talking about cutting facial hair not throats.

    44. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, good post, but sorry, but your last sentence doesn't make sense: "But they can certainly aid in the prosecution of them, which they can't do now."

      So, can they, or can't they?

    45. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I have been saying, 3rd party sellers will be the death of Amazon.

    46. Re:Except by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      Depends on who is on the bill of sale. If I see "Amazon.com" on my credit card statement, Amazon sold it to me. In Craigslist case, CL is not selling anything through their site, they're just listing. E-Bay is a bidding site that also makes it clear who you are actually purchasing from but depending on how they handle the sales, E-Bay COULD be on the hook. Amazon will handle all sales for sellers including warehousing and shipping, Amazon is a store just as much as Wal-Mart is.

      wait Amazon handles warehousing and shipping? How do I get THAT junk?

      --
      Just another second banana
    47. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Amazon will have a hard time convincing anyone that it's not the seller.

      Imagine Walmart offering table/shelf space inside its stores for other sellers, and allowing those sellers to have their products paid for at the Walmart cashiers... except for a small sign on the shelf you wouldn't even notice this was not a Walmart sold product because the process of selecting and purchasing is virtually identical to the consumer (even if on the backend things are more complicated when it comes to payments and restocking).

    48. Re:Except by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yes. I am guessing you never bought an Amazon Alexia... She will threaten to kill you if you dont buy things.

      Especially on Halloween.

      Alexa's always on speaker is constantly listening for when you start to snore. If you haven't purchased enough from Amazon recently she will sprout little robot legs and a knife will come of the speaker... she will make her way slowly to your room and then... ...

      The rest is too scary to tell on here.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    49. Re: Except by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      Since Amazon opened their platform to third parties, Amazon is almost certainly providing "material assistance" (or whatever the proper legal phrase is) to those sellers. Without Amazon, it is far less likely buyers would've had access to that seller.

      By that criteria, can't we also hold UPS, Visa, and her internet provider responsible? Without the means they provided (logistics, payment, access to seller respectively) this buyer wouldn't have 'access' to the seller or the means to complete the transaction?

    50. Re:Except by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Hopefully isn't as trivial as setting up an independent payment processing company to shift all such legal liabilities of the seller to an asset less company.

    51. Re:Except by lxs · · Score: 1

      Astra is owned by Gillette.

      But I agree. They make fine blades.

    52. Re: Except by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Let's go with some real examples here:
      Privately owned Dulles Greenway or leased Ontario 407 ETR.

    53. Re:Except by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      But, just as eBay used semantic hair-splitting and legal trickery to escape the responsibilities of auctioneers, Amazon will do the same to escape the responsibilities of being a store.

      They will try.
      There was an article here a week or so about 90% of Apple chargers sold over Amazon being fakes, I saw an article in a German computer magazine (C't) a year or two ago saying 100% of the Samsung batteries they bought online were fakes of wildly variable quality.
      The German magazine informed Amazon, they did nothing.

      Anything can happen in a jury trial and this one has the potential to really hurt Amazon.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    54. Re: Except by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Imagine Walmart offering table/shelf space inside its stores for other sellers

      You're describing Sears actually, and quite a few other retailers. I agree in such cases "Sears" is the seller, but if you try to return (in my case) a defective appliance you realize that "Sears" doesn't automatically assume they are responsible.

    55. Re: Except by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I think there's a pretty clear difference. When you buy on Amazon you don't get to chose the shipper, that's Amazon's decision, so no way can you hold UPS responsible. You don't have to use a Visa, and as far as I know, Visa (or your bank) doesn't give the money to the 3rd party seller directly, it goes through Amazon, which makes them an additional layer removed compared to Amazon. The ISP is protected by their common carrier status isn't it? I don't know. But again there's that separation, because you aren't connecting to the 3rd party provider at all with your ISP, rather Amazon does that itself after the order is placed.

    56. Re: Except by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      They employ people and diversify the choices available.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    57. Re:Except by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Amazon's really gone down the tubes in the last few years AFAICT. I've shifted a lot of my buying over to Ebay actually; I get better deals, especially if I only need one thing that doesn't cost over $50, since Amazon has high shipping fees if you don't buy enough to pass that threshold for free shipping. I still get some stuff on there, but I have to be really careful, whereas with Ebay I can look at a seller's reputation easily and buy only from sellers with stellar reputations. Amazon really doesn't have such a system, and you frequently don't know who's selling something, and you'll have no idea where it's being sent from except by looking at the projected shipping time. With Ebay, I can easily eliminate all the Chinese sellers by clicking "US only" or "North America only".

      I agree completely. This is 100% Amazon's fault. But I do disagree about buying computer parts; I get mine from Ebay. I can easily get off-lease high-end business-class laptops on there for dirt-cheap prices, plus tons of spare parts. Amazon has typically been where I went to get other stuff, like housewares, music CDs (sorry, I think buying music in MP3 format is dumb), a guitar amp, etc. But more and more, I'm finding Ebay is the better place to get stuff. It's even better for buying cheap Chinese stuff; if I'm willing to wait that long, I can look for a seller with a decent reputation and I know what I'm signing up for.

    58. Re:Except by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

      From Amazon:

      "A-to-z Claim Conditions

      When you buy from third-party sellers on Amazon.com, the condition of the item and its timely delivery are guaranteed under the A-to-z Guarantee.

      You can file a claim when all of the following applies:
      You have contacted the third-party seller through Your Account.
      You have waited two business days for a response.
      Your request meets one of our A-to-z Guarantee conditions below.
      The third-party seller failed to deliver the item by 3 days past the maximum estimated delivery date or 30 days from the order date, whichever is sooner.
      The item you received was damaged, defective, or materially different from the item represented on the product detail page.
      The third-party seller agreed that they'd refund you, and they either haven't refunded you at all or the refund is in the wrong amount."

      "Note: If the seller's listing is eligible for Amazon Prime, Amazon Customer Service will handle any issues related to the order."

      --
      -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
    59. Re:Except by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Sign up for a seller account, sell items and check of the box "let Amazon handle the sale". You ship it to their warehouse, they sell it, obviously the fees are quite a bit higher that way and they do have some restrictions/limitations.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    60. Re: Except by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I think Amazon will have a hard time convincing anyone that it's not the seller.

      Imagine Walmart offering table/shelf space inside its stores for other sellers, and allowing those sellers to have their products paid for at the Walmart cashiers... except for a small sign on the shelf you wouldn't even notice this was not a Walmart sold product because the process of selecting and purchasing is virtually identical to the consumer (even if on the backend things are more complicated when it comes to payments and restocking).

      I would say it is less like walmart and more like the mall. If the mall rents space to someone at the mall, that person sells a bunch of stuff and then skips town, in general I wouldn't believe that the mall would have any obligation to honor the defunct company's return policy.

    61. Re: Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except those goods are still sourced by Amazon, packed by Amazon, and shipped by Amazon, albeit with a different return address.

    62. Re:Except by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      If that candy bar was poisoned, I suspect someone would be suing Nestle and the grocery store.

    63. Re:Except by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Why not? Allowing third party sellers lets Amazon offer a larger selection of goods. And it's always clear whether you are buying directly from Amazon, from a third party with Amazon fulfillment, or from a third party with their own shipping.

    64. Re:Except by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      There are reports that Amazon has been mixing products in their warehouse bins, if they have the same part number, even if they belong to different sellers. That might be ok if the products are actually identical, but if "pirate" materials get sent by one seller, they could be sold to customers from other sellers.

      In other words, if fakes get into their warehouse it could get into anyones sales. So buying from reliable sellers is no protection.

      I think mixing products from different sellers that way is criminal?

    65. Re:Except by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't think it was criminal, but it could mean Amazon was on the hook for damages.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    66. Re: Except by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      TFS says that, in that state, the seller is liable if the manufacturer can't be found.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    67. Re:Except by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The thing that really bothers me, is that honest sellers could have their customers getting fake products that are entirely beyond their control!

    68. Re: Except by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      no, he is correct, to correct your poor analogy it would be like yes the product is sold by a store in the Mall, but the Mall also handles the payment and not the store, so the Mall would be the seller

    69. Re:Except by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Precisely. This causes a race to the bottom, since you don't know that if you pay the higher prices of the quality manufacturer you will get the quality goods. If this keeps up, Amazon will become a crap reseller, and lots of places that make good stuff will lose a convenient portal to their customers.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    70. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that logic PayPal also sell lots of random shit too, since whenever I pay for something with PayPal, I see PayPal on my bank statement. Obviously that isn't actually the case, PayPal just handle the payment.

      In many cases Amazon are just handling the payment, I think it is clear enough in those cases that Amazon isn't the actual seller. However it is quite a bit murkier when the fulfil and ship the order on behalf of the marketplace sellers, that is what could get them into legal trouble. They might have to stop doing that or at least properly vet the items they handle themselves.

    71. Re:Except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, law almost universally agrees, the person you give the money to in order to get the item is the seller.

      In most cases I give my money to the credit company, the credit card company gives the money to the shop. Does that mean I'm actually buying my food from the credit card company and not the grocery store?

      Consider this and the role Amazon actually plays.

    72. Re:Except by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      hmmm.. fairly straightforward but yeah the fees and such. Still might be worth it to get rid of some of the stuff that might sell on secondary market.

      --
      Just another second banana
    73. Re:Except by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are paying the shop with an IOU. The "money" you use is credit. That you aren't using cash doesn't change the "money" exchanged at the time of purchase. You give them an IOU for $10 and they give you $10 worth of goods. That you pay a 3rd party to take care of the IOU doesn't change the purchase agreement, and the "money" that changes hands at that point.

    74. Re:Except by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the lateness, was on vacation. As for parts? I buy new and on eBay new parts are often higher than just buying from Amazon or Newegg. Now if we are talking used? Then sure agree 100% but when it comes to new not only are they higher but you have sellers trying to pass off used as new which just won't do in one of my builds.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Amazon IS responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Amazon is full of counterfeit Chinese goods with no validation of their fitness for purpose. They need to be held accountable to protect US consumers - otherwise they are enabling Chinese manufacturers to bypass US consumer law and safety regulations.

  4. If Amazon loses... by davidwr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... at trial and all of the appeals, I wonder if they will just pull out of Tennessee entirely?

    More likely, they will lobby either the Tennessee legislature to change the law or lobby Congress to make sure state laws like this don't apply to them unless they "have a physical presence" in that state, then they will make sure they don't have such a presence in Tennessee so the law won't apply to them in the future.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:If Amazon loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd hope they drop out of the 3rd party seller program. I've made it a point to not buy from 3rd party sellers after problems dealing with them in the past.

    2. Re:If Amazon loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tennessee is in the middle of the country and has a cheap standard of living. I would be surprised if Amazon doesn't have some physical presence in the state. Regardless, Amazon probably should lose this one.

    3. Re:If Amazon loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "then they will make sure they don't have such a presence in Tennessee so the law won't apply to them in the future."

      I think Bezos is planning for Amazon to not have a physical presence on EARTH in the not too distant future.

    4. Re:If Amazon loses... by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Amazon probably should lose this one.

      Why? Is amazon supposed to test and validate every product offered through their store by a third party?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:If Amazon loses... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or just drop the scamming 3rd parties. If it's too hard to tell who the scammers are, they should dump them all.

    6. Re:If Amazon loses... by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      ...and even if they do, what's to stop a shady seller from shipping something different that they sent to Amazon for testing/validation?

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re: If Amazon loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they should heavily vet anyone who wants to sell on their site.

    8. Re: If Amazon loses... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No, but they should heavily vet anyone who wants to sell on their site.

      If they offered an optional vetting service, how much extra would you be willing to pay? Would you pay even more for "heavy" vetting?

    9. Re: If Amazon loses... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      How will they prevent people from:
      a) Lying to them?
      b) Shipping something inferior to the stuff they showed Amazon during the vetting process?

      An official Amazon "seal of approval" would just make things much worse for everybody.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:If Amazon loses... by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      they have at least 2 fairly large distribution centers in TN

    11. Re:If Amazon loses... by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      If they don't validate their 3rd party partners, how are they any different from Ebay?

    12. Re: If Amazon loses... by stevedog · · Score: 1

      Amazon has a huge physical presence in Tennessee.

    13. Re:If Amazon loses... by fnj · · Score: 2

      If they don't validate their 3rd party partners, how are they any different from Ebay?

      Only in that they POSE as a store, not an agent. False advertising.

    14. Re:If Amazon loses... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Tennessee has one of the largest distribution systems in the United States. If Amazon pulls out, they're fucking themselves.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re: If Amazon loses... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      They probably have a distribution qarehouse in Memphis since fedex is based there. Removing all physical presence from Tennessee would probably be a bad move

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    16. Re:If Amazon loses... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      No, they should be liable as a seller. How they cover that liability is up to them.

    17. Re: If Amazon loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heavy vetting is no guarantee that ISIS won't mail us Muslim terrorists goods. We need extreme vetting and a permanent ban on Muslim goods. Well build a wall and make ebay pay for it.

      #maga #trump2016 #savewomenrepealsuffrage

    18. Re:If Amazon loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, or stop using third party sellers.

      Quit trying to deny responsibility, shill.

    19. Re:If Amazon loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're supposed to verify their 3rd party sellers are reachable in case there's a liability issue. If they're not reachable, Amazon inherits liability.

    20. Re:If Amazon loses... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You know what would be better than Amazon Drones? Amazon space-drops. As their giant space satellites travel overhead, at exactly the right time your package drops out attached to a parachute and descends slowly to earth landing on your doorstep, or your roof.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    21. Re: If Amazon loses... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not willing to pay any extra for vetting. It should be free. I don't pay extra for "vetting" when I buy something sold by Amazon and shipped out of an Amazon warehouse, so why should I pay extra for something they sell from a 3rd party but don't make entirely obvious that it's coming from a 3rd party?

      If Amazon wants to open their platform to 3rd parties, it's their responsibility to vet those sellers. Ebay *only* sells through 3rd parties, but at least they put some real effort into rating those sellers and policing them when there's a problem. Amazon is set up to confuse you about who's selling an item and where it's coming from.

    22. Re:If Amazon loses... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well for starters, Ebay has a buyer-review system so that buyers can review and rate sellers. If a seller sucks, people are going to complain and give them terrible ratings, which immediately show up when you look at a listing. Amazon has a similar but crappy system that doesn't work remotely as well, and is set up to allow sellers to offer incentives to people to change their reviews.

  5. Sue for what exactly? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed. If anyone has a right to sue Amazon it will be the insurance company, to reclaim the money they paid out to the homeowners.

    1. Re:Sue for what exactly? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed. If anyone has a right to sue Amazon it will be the insurance company, to reclaim the money they paid out to the homeowners.

      It is possible their insurance did not cover the total loss as well as any damages bryond monetary.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Sue for what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you own a home? Often the value paid != cost of rebuilding, nor does homeowners insurance often cover the cost fully replacing items in your home, not to mention the priceless value of personal items and heirlooms.

    3. Re:Sue for what exactly? by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Funny

      For damages, sure, but maybe they wanted the genuine *Samsung* battery so they could burn their entire neighbourhood to the ground, but instead got a cheap knock-off and only their house got toasted and are suing for misrepresentation?

      Could be worse, at least they didn't get the oblig. bobcat...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:Sue for what exactly? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed. If anyone has a right to sue Amazon it will be the insurance company, to reclaim the money they paid out to the homeowners.

      Well, if someone torched the place I'd hopefully get the apartment value from the insurance company, but the tort for setting it on fire with me in it as well as heirlooms, memorabilia and other items of personal importance seem worth suing over. It all depends on the degree of culpability, not saying they're going to win but it's not a slam dunk dismissal.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Sue for what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No youre an idiot

    6. Re:Sue for what exactly? by fnj · · Score: 1

      They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed.

      But you don't know that they do. Many do not.

    7. Re:Sue for what exactly? by bloodhawk · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you win a lawsuit of this nature the first people to get paid back is the insurance company. My sister recently won a lawsuit against the scumbag incompetent doctor that was treating her. So she got around 800k, first thing required was 600k went to pay back what medical insurance had paid out.

    8. Re:Sue for what exactly? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed.

      And then next year their premiums will treble or more. Insurance is primarily there to cover you against things that are either accidental or your own damned fault. That's to say nothing of the fact that the insurance payout will be substantially less than the cost of everything that was lost. I assume you've never had your car written off.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    9. Re:Sue for what exactly? by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

      They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed. If anyone has a right to sue Amazon it will be the insurance company, to reclaim the money they paid out to the homeowners.

      Also keep in mind "The lawsuit seeks $30 million in damages and asks a jury to weigh additional financial penalties against the retailer...In addition to costly losses of all of the family's possessions, the lawsuit says the family should be compensated for physical injuries and emotional distress." They are suing for more than just the cost of their possessions. Not to be mean or anything but if you have a million dollar home and it burns down you are probably not going to end up on the street. They can probably rent an apartment for what it cost to heat and cool their house.

    10. Re:Sue for what exactly? by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      Without looking at all the details, it could actually be the insurance company suing on their behalf (subrogation). When you file a property insurance claim where a third party may be liable - the most common case is a car accident where you file a collision claim under your own insurance instead of a liability claim under the other guy's - the insurance company acquires your underlying right to seek reparations, either through an insurance claim or a lawsuit. If this is successful, you often get your deductible back. (There is no subrogation for life insurance, in case you were wondering - presumably because the insurance companies would tie up the courts with wrongful death suits that nobody would want to settle)

    11. Re:Sue for what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones that don't have home insurance are usually the ones that can't afford it. Not the ones with $1 million dollar houses.

    12. Re:Sue for what exactly? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Verdict: Guilty.

      Defendant ordered to reimburse plaintiff the full cost of the defective hoverboard.

    13. Re:Sue for what exactly? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Some states let you sue for the cost inflicted on you even if it was reimbursed, it is then up to your insurance company to sue you as you're cost was reduced.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    14. Re:Sue for what exactly? by jittles · · Score: 1

      They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed. If anyone has a right to sue Amazon it will be the insurance company, to reclaim the money they paid out to the homeowners.

      In my experience, the insurance company wants to sue anyone and everyone to reclaim their losses on the payout. I was injured many years ago and have on going treatment for said injury. Every time I have a procedure done I get a fresh letter from the insurance company asking me who they can sue. It's actually quite irritating because they can't legally sue anyone at this point - the statute of limitations already ran on it.

    15. Re:Sue for what exactly? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What kind of person can't afford home insurance? It's basically impossible to find a mortgage that doesn't require that you have home insurance, so it must be someone who is able to afford to own a house outright, but not able to afford a few dollars a month.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Not a chance by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I don't even think they'll stop letting people sell through them. They're in it for the long game, which is completely dominating all retail. This isn't even a bump in the road.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. It never does by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Informative

    Insurance companies fight you tooth and nail, often for years. Especially on a big payout like a burnt down house. Every year they delay inflation bites into the payout and you get more desperate to take whatever they'll give.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: It never does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents home burnt a little over a year ago. They had a full payout in a about two months.

    2. Re:It never does by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      My insurance covers temporary relocation, and has limits on contents. So if I wanted to relocate 1 year for the house to be torn down and re-built right, I'd have to pay for 9 months or so of accommodation. And the contents would be replaced to the insurance company's satisfaction, not mine. And I'd be paying for the deductible, and possibly have other limits on the policy.

      Plus, if I sue, I can recover the sentimental value of the items I have that were hand crafted by my great grandparents back in the day where if you wanted to sit down, you made a chair, or sat on the ground, a feeling known in the modern era by those who must build the IKEA chair if they wish to sit. Plus, everyone sues for "mental harm", hoping to get a $300M judgment.

    3. Re: It never does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the insurance company will pay out on the condition you legally perdue whoever was responsible. This really sucks if a friend does something by accident and the company wants you to sue or pursue criminal charges. Otherwise they want to go after another company if possible, and sometimes make the client do it in their own name.

    4. Re:It never does by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      You need better insurance. My insurance covers new for old and full rebuild regardless of cost as well as costs for temporary accommodation while they are rebuilding. The incentive with skyrocketing building costs is for them to get it done As soon as humanly possible in a disaster.

    5. Re:It never does by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1
      Sounds like you've had crummy insurance. I have State Farm for my auto and home. I've had to use my auto insurance twice and my home insurance once (for a break-in). All 3 times the payment was within a few weeks for the maximum coverage amount. No arguments. No hassles.

      Maybe I could save a few bucks a month by switching to one of the cheaper companies. But its worth it have good insurance when the chips are down.

  8. amzon may have to stop selling in Tennessee by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    amzon may have to stop selling in Tennessee after they pay out for this.

    1. Re:amzon may have to stop selling in Tennessee by fnj · · Score: 1

      Go ahead, define "selling in Tennessee", I dare you. I don't think you can; not with any sincerity. If I order something from a webpage of some Chinese based outfit, and tell them to ship it to Massachusetts, are they "selling it in Massachusetts"? No rational person would think so.

    2. Re:amzon may have to stop selling in Tennessee by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Well amazon does have warehouse their and maybe even there own branded trucks / vans.

    3. Re:amzon may have to stop selling in Tennessee by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Seems pretty obvious to me that selling something on the internet means you're selling it everywhere that has an internet connection and permission to buy from you.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:amzon may have to stop selling in Tennessee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my state (Texas) This is is defined as where it is being shipped to. I think that is a U.S. law but I am not sure.

    5. Re:amzon may have to stop selling in Tennessee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead, define "selling in Tennessee", I dare you. I don't think you can; not with any sincerity. If I order something from a webpage of some Chinese based outfit, and tell them to ship it to Massachusetts, are they "selling it in Massachusetts"? No rational person would think so.

      Yes they would. I have a business, and we sell into many states and collect sales taxes in many states. If I ship into a state, I have to comply with the regulations of that state.

      If a chinese site is shipping to a customer in Massachusetts, they are selling in Massachusetts and must comply with that states regulations and tax policy.

      This is common sense and how it has always worked.

  9. China by rossz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China has a long history of selling dangerous products. From poisonous pet food to exploding electronics. When confronted, the Chinese government's response is "what a shame, we'll do something". The "something" is to rename the company and do it all over again.

    Why the fuck does China have most favored nation trade status?

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:China by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China has a long history of selling dangerous products. From poisonous pet food to exploding electronics. When confronted, the Chinese government's response is "what a shame, we'll do something". The "something" is to rename the company and do it all over again.

      Why the fuck does China have most favored nation trade status?

      Because they've bought off a whole hell of a lot of people, but using cheap Chinese shit is good for the US company's short-term bottom line...which is all today's executives look at because that's what their bonuses and stock options are tied to.

    2. Re: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Why the fuck does China have most favored nation trade status?

      Especially considering that we are technically at war with the Communist party

    3. Re:China by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China has a long history of selling dangerous products. From poisonous pet food to exploding electronics. When confronted, the Chinese government's response is "what a shame, we'll do something". The "something" is to rename the company and do it all over again.

      Why the fuck does China have most favored nation trade status?

      That is hardly an exclusive problem to china, china just happens to make the vast majority of products nowadays. You don't have to look far to find cars that catch fire or mass tire recalls on faulty products, US contaminated beef or chicken etc etc. They do seem particularly lax on punishment etc but for the scale of it, it doesn't seem any worse than what most companies do the world over where cost and profit are king.

    4. Re: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the contaminated baby milk scandal AFAIK the people responsible were executed, which seems the opposite of going easy on them... To be fair, I doubt that's the usual punishment.

    5. Re:China by ADRA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't seem to complain about all the other products you use daily which were all/mostly manufactured in part in China. Obviously there's shoddy shit sold by all sorts of people, but you typically won't buy it unless you have confidence that said shit legitimate enough to assuage your risks. IPhones are made in China. But they're sold by Apple. People like and trust Apple, so Apple has the incentive to make damn sure that their products are high enough quality to match their perception.

      The product was sold through Amazon. If you ask the vast majority of Amazon users, they'll say when you buy from Amazon.com, you're buying Amazon. It is only in Amazon's best interest to tighten up and compensate buyers for potential losses due to shoddy products sold through their service. Otherwise, it'll end up much like Ebay has: the shit hole of fraud and bogus products on the internet. I can't name a single friend who still uses EBay after many years of use. Too much BS.

      --
      Bye!
    6. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not good for everyone's economy in the US by the way. Craftsmanship used to be a sought after trait and those people are out of work.

    7. Re: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you should hire them to build the high quality hand made stuff you say people want and get rich. They should work cheap since no one wants them, right?

      No? Then shut up and sit down on you $49 office chair with wobbly arms.

    8. Re:China by Trogre · · Score: 1

      China has two major advantages:

      1. No effective labour laws. Factory workers apparently don't need breaks, reasonable pay, sick leave, annual leave, accident insurance.

      2. No effective environmental laws. Turns out that countries that are happy to turn their own back yard into toxic sludge are more likely to get manufacturing contracts than countries that aren't quite so happy about the idea.

      In short, the west has decided to change manufacturing into Somebody Else's Problem.

      Note I said "effective". There are apparently laws that protect both workers and environment in China, but they are completely ignored and not enforced so may as well not exist.

      Personally, I stay away from products bearing the "Made in China" warning wherever possible, even if it involves paying a bit more.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    9. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the rest of the world outsourced all of their manufacturing to china because we're cheap fucks.

      Our own fault.

    10. Re:China by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Not good for everyone's economy in the US by the way. Craftsmanship used to be a sought after trait and those people are out of work.

      Short term. What they don't see is those out of work workers are no longer buying cars, or appliances, or most of the consumer products that keeps the economy humming.

    11. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is because of NAFTA. Simple as that.

    12. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right, it's mostly china because in Chinese culture, putting over one on the people on the on the other end makes you sly like a fox and "wise". Despite your liberal arts degree, Chinese are 10 times more likely to do this as Japanese where the customers are "gods", seriously they even use the most revered honorifics with customers. Now personally I don't want to be treated like a god when buying shit at a grocery store, but I also don't want melamine milk for my babies.

    13. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how exactly has NAFTA made US corporations corporate and lax? They were doing that long before NAFTA existed with disastrous product recalls throughout the last 30 or 40 years.

    14. Re:China by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Well Actually my Degrees are in IT and Business. Your ignorance of Chinese culture is astounding though. The only part you got right is the Japanese culture, sadly though even that is breaking down somewhat now with the recession there and they are becoming more like the US and China every day.

    15. Re: China by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      I'll have you know that my office chair was made in America (by prisoners), cost $300, *and* has wobbly arms!

    16. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You don't seem to complain about ALL THE OTHER PRODUCTS YOU USE DAILY which were all/mostly manufactured in part in China.

      Because they are not noteworthy. The many, many, many, many, items coming from China are not as intricate as these battery powered 'hover' boards. Consider the humble salt & pepper shakers, plastic vampire teeth, chrome wrenches, dog leashes, and last but not least- the ubiquitous ball cap with some logo stitched into it. These require very little quality control or safety review, if any.

      So when tasked with producing more complicated items, the same mentality used for the products above is applied. In other words "build & ship". That's it!
      No deep concern for quality control until an accident happens, then it's someone else's fault, (a normal human reaction, not specific to Chinese at all).

      That's why these items that catch fire get scrutiny, and other items get silent approval. Because they're benign.
      _

    17. Re:China by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      When confronted, the Chinese government's response is "what a shame, we'll do something". The "something" is to rename the company and do it all over again.

      In at least one recent case, it's also been to execute senior members of the company. In contrast, when a company in the US does the same the equivalent execs get a multi-million-dollar golden parachute.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:China by rossz · · Score: 1

      Shopping at Walmart is shopping yourself into poverty. Walmart policy pretty much forces vendors to ship their production to China.

      https://www.fastcompany.com/54...

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    19. Re:China by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Not good for everyone's economy in the US by the way. Craftsmanship used to be a sought after trait and those people are out of work.

      Short term. What they don't see is those out of work workers are no longer buying cars, or appliances, or most of the consumer products that keeps the economy humming.

      Oh they see it, they just personally get rewarded more for ignoring it and playing the short game. Our incentive system is set up to reward a few individuals for selling out our long-term collective well-being, so that's exactly what happens.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  10. Leave it to rich assholes.... by Lumpy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nooo, instead of paying for home insurance, they instead go all sue happy.
    The only person they need to sue is themselves for buying the stupid thing when it is WIDELY KNOWN they are not safe and there is a national ban on them.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Leave it to rich assholes.... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Informative

      What makes you think they didn't have home owner's insurance? What makes you think that the policy - like so many that most people have - would truly make them whole, financially? Most policies don't. And none of them will replace family heirlooms, in terms of their sentimental value, etc.

      That said, Amazon didn't make this batter, and makes the third party vendor responsible for the assertions they make about product suitability and safety. Now, if Amazon KNEW that the vendor was lying, and Amazon didn't give them the heave as they do to thousands of vendors, regularly, that's another matter. But Amazon's not responsible for a third party misrepresenting things, just like they're not responsible for a death when a criminal uses a steak knife from Amazon to kill somebody.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Leave it to rich assholes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it is being sold on Amazon presumably it has been vetted and approved for sale by . . . . . wait for it . . . . AMAZON!

      Blaming the victim is a time-honored tradition among a certain group of people, it would appear. You also appear resentful because they have a $1M home (rich assholes comment).

    3. Re: Leave it to rich assholes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might be if the knife was defective.

      At least, in Tennessee. Assuming the description of the law is accurate.

      And if somebody left a long, rambling comment about it being a perfect knife for slaughtering the innocent, I might expect Amazon to inform law enforcement.

    4. Re:Leave it to rich assholes.... by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1
      They are suing for 30 million, including physical injuries and emotional distress.

      I imagine the bulk of what they are suing for is emotional distress.

    5. Re: Leave it to rich assholes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the pesky detail of Amazon having a business relationship with this company, not a one-off interaction.

      You sell a bank robber a gun, maybe you just thought he was joking. You start selling in bulk to a criminal gang, maybe the rest of us decide you are part of their criminal enterprise.

    6. Re: Leave it to rich assholes.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So you are assuming that Amazon KNEW the product was defective and sold it anyway. What evidence do you have of this? Be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re: Leave it to rich assholes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of getting your undies all twisted in a knot, and making insane demands, just realize that I was offering a set of hypothetical circumstances which your own example did not cover, and that I am not engaged in this particular case. I'm just suggesting some things for you to think about, as your own contemplations do not seem very thorough, so you're not understanding the relevant situation, but creating some irrelevant strawman to joust against.

      Tennessee is quite capable of imposing liability on a seller for a product with a manufacturing defect, as seems to be alleged here. It might even amount to strict liability, which means Amazon can't even claim they didn't know, because they might have been obligated to know.

      If you want specifics as to this case, what I can suggest you do is look at the article, and if you want further information...well, for 15,000 US dollars, I'll go to the courthouse in Tennessee and copy everything in their file that they have. Payable in advance. No refunds. Otherwise, do your own legwork.

    8. Re: Leave it to rich assholes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe the attorney quoted in the article was lying, and submitted false information to the court, I suggest you provide the evidence you have to support your contention, and be specific about it.

      Otherwise, go to this buildingand check it out.

    9. Re:Leave it to rich assholes.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That said, Amazon didn't make this batter, and makes the third party vendor responsible for the assertions they make about product suitability and safety. Now, if Amazon KNEW that the vendor was lying, and Amazon didn't give them the heave as they do to thousands of vendors, regularly, that's another matter. But Amazon's not responsible for a third party misrepresenting things, just like they're not responsible for a death when a criminal uses a steak knife from Amazon to kill somebody.

      Not sure how it works in the USA, but in the EU liability follows the supply chain. If I buy something from Amazon then Amazon is liable to me, the company that supplied it to Amazon is liable to them, and so on. Even if it's a 'marketplace seller', Amazon took the money, Amazon is responsible. If I sued Amazon, they'd probably settle and then immediately turn around and sue the supplier for the settlement amount plus their costs. If Amazon were sensible, then they'd require that their sellers have liability insurance so that they can't just go out of business and leave Amazon in trouble, but these rules exist specifically to protect consumers against fly-by-night wholesalers that produce something dangerous and then go out of business after paying their execs large salaries when the returns start coming in. The consumer if protected in the other case because if the direct seller goes out of business then the liability reverts up the supply chain.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Plaintifs are seeking $30 MILLION in damages. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THAT's why they're suing. PAY DAY!

    1. Re:Plaintifs are seeking $30 MILLION in damages. by PPH · · Score: 1

      It was a $1 million dollar house. They've got to sue for $30 million so there will be something left after the attorneys' feeding frenzy.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Seller versus platform by SilentChasm · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I'm not sure how this:

    The lawsuit says the seller of the hoverboard listed online, "W-Deals," is a sham organization that is registered to an apartment in New York City that has not responded to requests from lawyers in the case.

    combines with this:

    It says Tennessee product liability law holds a seller responsible if the manufacturer cannot be found.

    to make liability for Amazon. They still wouldn't be the seller, just because the original seller can't be found. It sounds like they should still be trying to go after "W-Deals".

    1. Re:Seller versus platform by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      I'm curious how Tennessee law has this covered already. It'd be liking buying from a consignment shop. The store itself sells it to you, but they in no way control what people bring them for sale. I bet there's already case law that is comparable to this situation, as Amazon literally is a consignment shop when they ship third party products.

    2. Re:Seller versus platform by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      You might be right, but Amazon calls W-Deals a seller. That doesn't mean law will also call W-Deals a seller for this particular transaction.

      It is crudely like Amazon calls your account number Prime, but a mathematician when provided with the number might find many prime factors of the account number and refuse to accept the account number as prime. A word has different meanings in different contexts, and especially for marketing many words are misused e.g. prime, privileged, Gold/Silver/Platinum, "Free", "Unlimited".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  13. Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) They sneak in 3rd party resellers. Lots of other sites allow 3rd party resellers - Newegg, Sears (almost entirely 3rd party), eBay, etc. For the most part, they make it damn obvious you're buying from a 3rd party, not from the site itself. Most of them even let you exclude 3rd party sellers with a single click. Amazon shows the seller name in easily-missed text in the middle of the product listing - very easy to miss. It's easier if you have Prime, as many 3rd parties don't support Prime. So you'll search for a product, click on one listed with Prime shipping, and when you go to put it in your cart you notice it doesn't have Prime shipping because Amazon has silently substituted a 3rd party seller. And I haven't been able to find an option on Amazon to exclude 3rd parties.

    2) Contamination of their supply chain. This is based on hearsay, although my personal experience seems to support it. Have you noticed the "Sold by xxx and shipped by Amazon" tags on some products? The way that works is the 3rd party seller sends their inventory to Amazon. Amazon stores it in their warehouse, and when you buy from that seller, Amazon ships it for them. The problem is Amazon seems to co-mingle 3rd party inventory with their own. So if you order a SD card, Amazon's computers grab the nearest available SD card whether it be from Amazon's inventory or a 3rd party's inventory. Your go through the effort of making sure you're buying the SD card with Amazon as the seller to try to get a genuine one, and you still end up getting a fake sent to Amazon by ConterfeitsRUs. I've basically given up buying commonly counterfeited items like flash drives from Amazon. I pay the extra to get them from a local retailer whose supply chain hasn't been contaminated this way.

    1. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i fucking hate the third party sellers on a merchant's web site: amazon, walmart, newegg, etc. I DON'T WANT TO BUY FROM THEM. EVER. if i'm on *amazon* or *newegg* or *walmart* - i want to buy from *amazon*, *newegg* and *walmart*. that's why i went to the damn site in the first place.

      if i wanted to buy from some shady chinese guy or roll the dice on whether or not i get a "real" or "fake" product, i would have gone to ebay, for fucks' sake.

    2. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      3rd party listings are really starting to get irritating as well. Due in no small part to the glut of items listed at crazy low prices but with astronomical S&H that is clearly the actual cost of the product being listed along with some normal S&H fees. Which makes sort by price practically unusable. I mean hell even eBay managed to mitigate that kind of blatant abuse years ago.

      All while Amazon continues to jack up the minimum price for free shipping and push Prime for everything under the sun.

    3. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've basically given up buying commonly counterfeited items like flash drives from Amazon. I pay the extra to get them from a local retailer whose supply chain hasn't been contaminated this way.

      So far every flash card I've got from Amazon has been genuine. When I get it, I go straight to the manufacturer's website and register it. I only buy SanDisk or Samsung (depending on whether I care more about cost or random access performance, respectively) and they both have preregistration.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I pay the extra to get them from a local retailer whose supply chain hasn't been contaminated this way.

      Why not pay a bit less and get them direct from Newegg? This way you're saving a bit of money, getting a genuine product, and helping the fight against e-commerce patent trolls all at the same time.

    5. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by nnull · · Score: 1

      Amazon makes this a little worse as well. A lot of "Amazon Warehouses" are actually third party sellers that Amazon has made deals with to ship products out. So expanding on point #2, you'll find counterfeit products being sold by Amazon. I was waiting for someone to sue Amazon for this, eventually someone is going to hit them for not selling listed products. All one has to do is order a coffee machine from Amazon that's not listed and simply burn their own house down, easy payout (Did I just give someone an idea?). Home Depot was hit the same way and now they require every electrical product they sell to be listed.

    6. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by stikves · · Score: 1

      There goes my mod points.

      Amazon has two different ways the 3rd party inventory is stored in prime warehouse: with original UPC, or with seller specific code.

      If the item is brand new, and has only one listing per that UPC, the seller has the option not to include a second bar code, and use the product's own UPC. (This would include most flash drives that you've mentioned). However I'm not sure Amazon will have an exact way to distinguish inventory between sellers when this is done. But even then the mixups should be very rare.

      On the other hand, if the item is used, refurbished, or has multiple sellers, or the seller chooses to do so, they will use a second bar code, specific to that seller, and they should not be easily mixed.

      Yes, you'll have better inventory control if you're buying used from Amazon.

    7. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I haven't been able to find an option on Amazon to exclude 3rd parties.

      Really, you never noticed on the left hand side where all the filters are there was one labeled "Seller: Amazon.com ()"

    8. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gave up buying toner on Amazon because it was often counterfeit. Not 3rd party, but refills of genuine cartridges or straight counterfeit - even from Amazon as the seller. Plus I never buy anything that isn't fulfilled by Amazon, but for some goods it never makes a difference. Easy to counterfeit things are easy to buy on Amazon at full retail prices

    9. Re:Highlights a couple real problems with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I asked an Amazon employee about the co-mingling (fungible) product problem. He explained they visually inspect products to find counterfeits, and was very confident in the quality products Amazon ships. I'm less confident.

  14. No sprinklers? by hawguy · · Score: 0

    They paid over $1M for their home, and couldn't pay another $20K to retrofit sprinklers?

    1. Re:No sprinklers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I haven't been in many million dollar homes, but I don't think I've ever seen a house with a sprinkler system (not counting for the lawn).

    2. Re:No sprinklers? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      So they should have to invest $20k just to protect themselves from faulty products? I've never seen a home with sprinklers.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:No sprinklers? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I haven't been in many million dollar homes, but I don't think I've ever seen a house with a sprinkler system (not counting for the lawn).

      My state has required fire sprinklers in new residential construction since 2011.

    4. Re:No sprinklers? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So they should have to invest $20k just to protect themselves from faulty products? I've never seen a home with sprinklers.

      Not just faulty consumer products, but cooking fires (most common cause of home fires), faulty heating equipment (tied with cooking fires for fire related fatalities), electrical and lighting faults, intentionally set fires, and smoking related fires. If you're buying a million dollar 4,000 square foot house, why wouldn't you make a safety improvement that's shown to save lives (and can safe the structure itself, but that's a lesser concern). If you care about your family's safety, go above and beyond fire codes. I bet the granite countertops in the kitchen in that house cost more than it would have cost to put in sprinklers.

      I've seen many homes with fire sprinklers, my state requires them in new construction and I've known people that retrofitted them (usually with a new home purchase in combination with electrical upgrades since the sprinkler system itself is only about half the cost of the retrofit, the other half is drywall repairs).

      This family didn't even have linked smoke detectors throughout the house, which led to a delay in evacuation:

      Both children initially confused the sounds of the blaze for someone breaking into the home. They thought they heard arguing, according to their parents, but were confused by the sounds of their pets and the vocal warnings of the downstairs fire alarms.

      In my home every smoke detector is linked (through hardwire and/or RF links) and every one alerts at the same time -- everyone in the family knows that if they hear them go off to leave the house *immediately*. 2nd floor bedrooms both have escape ladders. Oh, and the house has a sprinkler system, which was one of the things I looked for when buying. And yes, we do yearly fire drills.

      It may seem like over the top paranoia, but my brother lost his house to a fire caused by a furnace fault, he and his family all got out (he and his wife had to go out the 2nd floor window, fortunately the kids rooms were on the first floor and they escaped through a window), but the speed with which it went up made me realize that it's true what they say about fires - every second counts. By the time the fire department got there (about 7 minutes after they were called), the home was fully engulfed and was a total loss. Spending time debating whether or not that sound you hear is really the smoke detector can make a significant difference in getting out safely. Fire is the 3rd leading cause of death in the home (after falls and poisoning).

    5. Re: No sprinklers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because houses in US are built completely inadequately from wood. There is no metal, bricks or concrete. Now let's see how much evac time you have if your furnace is on fire in a concrete dwelling- umm it doesn't matter, you have more than enough to go cut the circuit breakers, take your extinguisher and put it out, before you need to evacuate due to smoke.

    6. Re:No sprinklers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My neighbor had a sprinkler system installed while they had a second story bedroom/bathroom added to their $400k house. Less than a year later it malfunctioned and went off, flooding every room and destroying all their possessions.

    7. Re:No sprinklers? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      My neighbor had a sprinkler system installed while they had a second story bedroom/bathroom added to their $400k house. Less than a year later it malfunctioned and went off, flooding every room and destroying all their possessions.

      I've never heard of a residential "deluge" style system (the kind where one sprinkler head going off triggers every sprinkler in the system), they are typically only used in commercial construction, and even then only in special circumstances (i.e. if a hallway sprinkler goes off, all of the hallway sprinklers trigger, but if a janitorial closet sprinkler goes off, that doesn't set off every sprinkler in the building).

      But even if all heads in the system went off, unless they were away from home for an extended period, it's unlikely that a sprinkler discharge destroyed *all* of their possessions -- anything in a cabinet would have been mostly spared, as would have things that aren't destroyed by water (clothes, dishes, etc), durable appliances (bathroom fixtures, laundry, kitchen appliances), and typically the home structure itself is salvageable if cleanup and drying starts right away. In contrast, a fire literally does destroy everything in a very short period of time -- nothing was salvageable from my brother's house, pretty much the entire contents of the house ended up in the basement in a pile as the floors and walls burnt through.

      If they were away from home for an extended period, then I could see water damage being much worse, but it doesn't take a sprinkler system to cause that kind of damage, a washing machine host failure, refrigerator icemaker failure, or just an old fashioned plumbing leak can cause the same problem.

      I live in a residential complex with over 100 separate dwellings, all have sprinklers, there have been 2 accidental discharges in the history of the complex - both were caused by physical damage to a sprinkler head (one was caused by a contractor accidentally hitting it during a remodel, one was from children hitting it with a toy thrown at the ceiling). 7 sprinkler heads have been replaced over the past 20 years due to leaks (4 of them within a year of construction). The HOA doesn't track legitimate sprinkler activations, there's only one recent fire that I'm aware of - someone had a large grease fire in the kitchen (they knocked over a pan of cooking oil and it caught fire on the stove and surrounding cabinetry). They ran outside to call 911 and by the time the fire department had arrived, the kitchen sprinklers had already activated and stopped the fire. The sprinkler activation also triggered local fire alarms to warn residents and called the fire department. The fire department had to beak up the cabinets involved in the fire to look for and hidden fires, but didn't need to use their own water, so damage was limited to the kitchen (with some water damage to the surrounding floor). In contrast, a few years back a nearby apartment building (without sprinklers) had a similar kitchen fire - 2 apartments were destroyed, 17 units had extensive smoke damage and were uninhabitable for several weeks, and 4 other units had water damage.

    8. Re:No sprinklers? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they should sue the manufacturer of the smoke alarm.

    9. Re:No sprinklers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a cop and probably had connections. He even had one of those red alarm bells attached to the outside of his house, which went off along with the sprinklers. It must have been tied to the F.D. as the firetrucks also showed up pretty quick. The owner came out drenched yelling "no fire" to the firemen. They pretty much gutted the place and started over from scratch. The guy was an asshole anyway.

    10. Re:No sprinklers? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It may be over the top but the extremes go the other way too. I have 3 fire extinguishers and a fire blanket in my house. They are positioned strategically to fight the most likely sources of fire (in the kitchen, entry to kitchen near my workshop, and at the front entry to the house) yet most people can't be bothered keeping the batteries in their smoke detector charged.

      A little bit goes a long way.

    11. Re:No sprinklers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice victim blaming, dirtbag.

    12. Re:No sprinklers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, installing sprinklers opens you up for other liablities.
       
      Basic jist: house with sprinkler system was vacated for a few days. Heat failed, sprinkler pipes froze, massive water damage resulted. Insurance denies claim because sprinkler system should have been turned off while house was vacated. Ok fine, except that disabling a sprinkler system would have been a violation of the fire code. So had they done that and the house burned down, they would have been denied the fire claim.
       
      Obviously still better than a dead family.

  15. Because they manufacture just about everything by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you don't like it you need to bring back more manufacture (not the jobs, Americans make too much, it'll mostly be robots). And if you're gonna bring back manufacturing you're either going to have the kind of pollution that gives people cancer or a large and powerful gov't apparatus that monitors and punishes factories for polluting. Neither of which is palatable to Americans.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Because they manufacture just about everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is we Americans really like our cheap shit. I got a patio furniture set a few years ago for $300, and it's really nice. You couldn't get something like this made in the US for $300. It's a point we often miss when we talk about trade. Our standard of living is a lot higher because of all the cheap household goods we can buy. China or Mexico aren't the only partners benefiting from these trade agreements. Every time I've bought cheap electronics, I've made that decision that my money was worth trading for something they made in a foreign country. Nice clothes for a fraction of the cost they would be if they were made here? We'll buy.

  16. i agree with this lawsuit because by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    i have seen some inferior imported products that are normally found on ebay creep their way in to amazon, what happened to the FTC making sure products are safe? when something like this family's house burning down goes ignored or thrown out of court it sets a bad precident that encourages more faulty products to be sold in the USA, and if you dont agree i bet you will when it is your property thats destroyed because of poor quality products self destructing and taking out your entire home

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:i agree with this lawsuit because by nnull · · Score: 1

      We just have lousy import controls that let these products through like nothing. US Customs is simply not doing their jobs to prevent these products from coming in. Somehow Europe manages to stop a lot more of this than we do. This cheap crap also has a high cost to many other industries, including insurance. Our building and fire codes have been upgraded to deal with the cheap stuff which has caused a lot of things to literally explode in price astronomically when it used to be that we could trust certain products. The fire sprinklers in homes didn't just get thrown in there out of nowhere. I can't even trust my coffee maker anymore, many counterfeit brands being sold with no high limit controller, because 30 cents is already too expensive. I've already had one coffee maker melt itself (Bought by an employee), with a supposedly "counterfeit" UL mark bought from the local store (Shows how much that UL mark is helping too, completely useless).

      Also, China also abuses the crap out of that CE mark (Which only works in Europe, the US has no laws for CE), but have managed to convince a lot of people this is acceptable in the US. I get so many machine sales guy trying to convince me of this, which I promptly kick out of my building.

  17. This is why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why we can't have nice things

  18. impossible to go after CHinese companies, SO... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    we should be able to go after the companies that SELL CHinese products. Walmart, Sears, K-Mart, Target, etc should all be held responsible for selling garbage.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:impossible to go after CHinese companies, SO... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Walmart, Sears, K-Mart, Target, etc should all be held responsible for selling garbage.

      This is essentially up to the state. California has some protections, but they are often circumvented by these specific bastards. For example, Sears will change the model numbers every year so that they don't have the correct item to replace your old item with... Alas, no state seems to really have adequate warranty protection.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:impossible to go after CHinese companies, SO... by nnull · · Score: 1

      The problem with these stores, they already cover themselves by selling products that are listed only. They absolve themselves out of all responsibility and the listing companies just claim it was built to specific standards. Everyones ass is covered.

  19. According to the summary ... by gordguide · · Score: 1

    " ... It says Tennessee product liability law holds a seller responsible if the manufacturer cannot be found. ..."

    Assuming that's true and complete, Amazon, who handles the cash for the transaction, is on the hook.

    Regardless, when you sue someone, you sue everybody who even looked like they were near the situation in question, to get at the deep pockets when the losers are found to be jointly and severally liable. It's up to each of them to convince the courts they should be dropped from the suit. So, regardless of what happens next, Amazon is going to be chased in this case.

    1. Re: According to the summary ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I order it C.O.D. then you think I should be able to sue the post office?
      UPS and FedEx make money in the sale too for their shipments. So can I sue them?
      How about my ISP? They got paid for the connection to the webs site.

      Where do you draw the line?

      Make sure you don't create any business strangling regulations while you are at it.

    2. Re: According to the summary ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C.O.D. is not a "sale". It is a shipment option that is RARELY user / allowed.

    3. Re:According to the summary ... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Maybe Amazon should hire Jack Reacher to track down the real seller.

    4. Re:According to the summary ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Amazon should hire Jack Reacher to track down the real seller.

      He does seem to work well with Maria Hill.

  20. Ever had to actually use it? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Coverage vs payout are very different things. I've used car insurance twice and tried to use home once. The two car companies cost me several grand for two cases where I was rear ended and for the home owners it was made clear to me I wouldn't get close to my deductible.

    I know one guy who made out OK within insurance, but for the stupidest reason imaginable. He's a dummy and bought one of those $3000 rent-to-own laptops (e.g. a $600 laptop that they mark up to $3k because if they can't legally charge that much interest). It got stolen and the insurance company called the rent to own place to get the 'value' of the laptop, which of course was $3k. He used the money to buy a decent laptop for real.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Ever had to actually use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a dummy and ... It got stolen

      Of course, it's entirely possible that he's not such a dummy (except morally) and it got "stolen:...

  21. Huh? by dohzer · · Score: 2

    I had to look up what they were talking about in the article. It's not a hoverboard (obviously). It's one of those sideways-scooter balancey-board thingies that kids have these days.
    Not sure why they are talking about a hoverboard.

    1. Re:Huh? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the future of false promises. I also wanted a humanoid robot, but all I got was a stupid phone.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Huh? by nsuccorso · · Score: 1

      Look, buddy, why don't you just go get in your autonomous car and take a long drive down the highway with both hands on the wheel and both eyes glued to the road the entire time, OK?

  22. Amazon = eBay by XSportSeeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Amazon = eBay, only sometimes even worse.

    This is what I say to everyone. I don't even bother trying to explain anymore, for most people it's just better to understand Amazon that way. Specially for people who never bought there and still have this image that everything sold at Amazon comes directly from Amazon and are all guaranteed by the company.

    Of course, if Amazon wanted to stay away from all these shitty products, they would've created the Marketplace as a separate thing. But it's obvious that they wanted people not to notice the difference. So yeah, it'll be interesting to see the results of this lawsuit. The difference between Amazon and eBay is that Amazon used to be it's own store, and it still sells their own products. eBay always was about providing a venue for people to make business. It's well understood that you are not buying anything directly from eBay.

    And Amazon also does a shit job of letting costumers know about the reputation and quality of products sold by their shitty selected vendors. Selected as in who pays a bigger part of their scam, I imagine.

    Here's the funny thing: in the past 4 years or so that I've been shopping on eBay, I've never had a single problem with the products, including external batteries, lots of electronics with LiPo batteries in them, and whatnot. And just in case it happens, I also got a fireproof pouch from eBay to keep stuff in it. xD

    Amazon, on the other hand, I had problems with fake SD cards, they now have implemented some weird system of pre-charging import taxes that are often waaay above the actual value. Sometimes they return a small percentage of it (like 3 months after the fact), often times they simply don't. And most of the products still cannot be sent to my country anyways, so there's that.

    The only advantage Amazon offers to people living in my country is that their products arrive generally faster than stuff bought from chinese stores on eBay... but that's only because they use companies like Fedex, UPS, DHL and the like that are all basically running a scam here in Brazil. They will rip you off here when it comes to charging tax, extra costs, and storage fees you never asked for. They basically hold your products hostage. On average, I'll pay 1.5x to 2x the tax costs, which usually sums up to 110%+ the product value plus shipping, when a product comes from Amazon. It arrives in a week or so. From eBay, it comes via regular mail, so I pay whatever the government actually charges, which ranges from 60% to 100%. It can take anywhere from a month to 6 months because it depends on the goodwill of governmental agencies, but it gets here, and there's no extra bullshit charges.

    And this is why I haven't been buying anything from Amazon. The last thing they had going for them was reliability for countries like mine.

    Of course, Amazon couldn't care less about the little money coming from countries like Brazil... it's cheap change for them and they have demonstrated it well enough with their horrible policies regarding overseas shipping. But yeah, the way Amazon incorporated marketplace into their main store and started selling all these products that seem to have an even worse quality control than eBay, it's quite telling.

    1. Re:Amazon = eBay by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Now I see why a coworker is so happy now that he got transferred from Brazil to California. It's been three months and he's still grinning like a puppy.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:Amazon = eBay by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Of course, if Amazon wanted to stay away from all these shitty products, they would've created the Marketplace as a separate thing. But it's obvious that they wanted people not to notice the difference.

      To be fair, Amazon first started allowing 3rd-party sellers a long time ago, back when many people thought of it as primarily a bookstore. Back then, it was a decent way of finding products from sellers of used books (since Amazon never seemed to interested in getting into that market directly), and since there are so many out-of-print books, that was the only option Amazon had to make them available.

      And to this day I still buy used books on Amazon (particularly out-of-print titles), and over the years in many dozens of purchases I've only had one bad experience buying a book from a 3rd-party book merchant. In fact, most of them seem to offer superior service to Amazon, actually bothering to wrap up the book in a reasonable fashion to prevent damage during shipping. Whereas Amazon just tends to throw books along with other stuff in a giant box where everything knocks around and just "hopes for the best."

      Things like used books aren't generally profitable to counterfeit, though. Whereas with all the other stuff Amazon sells from 3rd parties, there's a lot of motivation to sell knock-offs.

      And I agree that once they started moving beyond the basic bookstore with used books, they needed to start differentiating these 3rd-party sellers. (I do realize that Amazon was more than a bookstore even back in the beginning, but books used to be a dominant portion of their business.)

      And Amazon also does a shit job of letting costumers know about the reputation and quality of products sold by their shitty selected vendors.

      What they really need to do is allow customers an easy way to separate reviews for products based on vendor. The main issue right now is that you have one product page, and perhaps thousands of reviews for popular products. But they're all jumbled together, and it's difficult to tell whether those 50 reviews complaining about defective or counterfeit products might apply to the vendor you're looking at.

      Obviously it's a very imperfect idea, because we all know how Amazon reviews are faked all the time now too. But if you could at least have a box to click saying, "Show me ONLY reviews for this battery for 'verified purchases' from X vendor," and you see a lot of reviews saying, "This is a SCAM!" you might have a chance of realizing the problem before purchase.

      And of course there should also just be a more transparent acknowledgement that you're purchasing from a 3rd-party in the first place. You shouldn't be able to use the same purchase button or "add to cart" as if you're buying direct from Amazon. It should require at least an extra step, or look clearly different in some way.

      Otherwise, Amazon is opening itself up to lawsuits just like in TFS.

  23. sprinklers are the wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We keep requiring more and more fire-protection gadgetry, but fail to address the issue: we're using flammable materials.

    Fix that, and the sprinklers become pointless. It's time to stop being stupid.

    Commercial construction normally uses metal studs. Do that. Metal roofs are commonly available; the better residential construction already uses them. Exterior walls can be concrete block (standard in Florida) or poured concrete (common for McMansions in Florida). Tile floors don't burn. Traditional cabinets were steel; do that or maybe glass. Metal doors are widely available.

    The end result: no part of the house can sustain fire, and almost none can even melt in a normal flame.

    1. Re:sprinklers are the wrong approach by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Drywall often has burn times of an hour or more which should delay spread (much better than say tiling your basement. I think the bigger issue than timber framing is actually insulation, both fibrelass and spray foam burn very fast.

    2. Re:sprinklers are the wrong approach by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Trees grow quickly compared to rocks. It's all about the renewable ya know.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:sprinklers are the wrong approach by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Fibreglass melts rather than burns, but it still leaves a big open cavity for fire to spread.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  24. They are not hoverboards by Stan92057 · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are not hoverboards they do not hover what so ever that ride on wheels firmly planted on the ground. Call them motorized skateboards, that more closer to what they actually are.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:They are not hoverboards by Luthair · · Score: 1

      More like mini-segways since there is no board and only two wheels.

  25. Amazon Hoverboard Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Amazon offer to refund all Hoverboard purchases? If this customer didn't take advantage of it. It's their own damn fault. People knew the risk these Hoverboards pose.

  26. UL Listing by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

    A 115 comments and no one has yet mentioned that the device plugged into the AC outlet and it did not have a UL listing.

    The problem here is that UL listings (or equivalent) are voluntary and there is no legal requirement for a product to carry one. But there is a common sense requirement. Where were the parents when it came to looking at the product for safety approvals? It was free to ship it back to Amazon if they didn't like what they saw.

    And I really believe this "It alleges the family was sold a counterfeit product from China instead of a brand with a Samsung lithium ion battery they believed they were buying from Amazon" So they were sophisticated enough to have researched that Samsung Lion batteries were better, but they were not sophisticated enough to notice the lack of a UL listing.

    And who was being counterfeited?

    1. Re:UL Listing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Id be willing to bet the family wasn't sophisticated enough to know better. Once their house burned down and the reason was determined and they spoke with their lawyer, im sure it was the lawyer that pointed it out. If they knew enough that there were issues with these things, id hope they wouldn't be willing to have one in the house period.

  27. Counterfeit indeed by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Sadly, all products using the name "Hoverboard" are counterfeit at this point in time.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  28. Boo fucking hoo by tomxor · · Score: 0

    $1 million home was destroyed

    You'd think someone with so much money could have afforded a fire alarm. Then again I guess their house was probably so disproportionately big or underutilised that no one was there to hear it.

    1. Re:Boo fucking hoo by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and how is that fire alarm going to stop a fire that is to big to put out on your own?

    2. Re:Boo fucking hoo by tomxor · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there is a public service for that...

  29. Not for the past 15 months by tepples · · Score: 1

    On July 20, 2015, eBay spun off PayPal.

  30. I wonder how bad the Samsung battery would do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This looks like a case trying to milk Amazon, for $30m, when the home itself was valued at $1m. The cost to rebuild the home, and some of its belongings may not cross $5m.

    Still, to try running a counterfeit product knowing it was counterfeit was just dangerous.

  31. $30 million? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    "The lawsuit seeks $30 million in damages and asks a jury to weigh additional financial penalties against the retailer. Nashville Fire Department officials said a hoverboard caught fire on Jan. 9, destroying a 4,000-square-foot $1 million home on Radcliff Drive, near Edwin Warner Park."

    Hmm... ok... from the pictures... I'm curious what justified a house with such a miserable kitchen to be worth a million bucks, but let's assume that a 4000ft.sq. house is worth something. It's Tennessee so the people there are part of the weird bible belt. There's probably a window with an impression of Jesus on it that got destroyed in the fire or something like that.

    I'll assume that the $1,000,000 home already has fire insurance on it. I'll also assume that if you can afford to live in that house, then you've paid the deductible and the house as well as the sparkly Chinese crap like hoverboards filling the garage and everything else was paid for. This is why you have fire insurance to begin with. Even if Amazon pays the $30 million, the rest of the stuff is already covered by insurance either way. I'm sure if you have an insured million dollar home, you also have health insurance with a low deductible that covered medical and psychiatric treatment. Altogether, the cost of this to the family is likely in the ballpark of $20-$30,000 spread over a period of 5 years. That's peanuts.

    So, now they want to sue Amazon for $30 million because of a fire they caused by buying a plastic piece of crap meant to move chubby children around those few times their chubby little asses may actually otherwise be used to peddle a bicycle or make scissor actions with their legs while standing causing them to move towards their destination.

    "In addition to costly losses of all of the family's possessions, the lawsuit says the family should be compensated for physical injuries and emotional distress."

    Their physical injuries are covered.

    Emotional distress.... holy what the fucking fuck. Emotional distress. If my house ... a $900,000 1,100sq.ft. townhouse burned down with all our crap in it, we'd live in a hotel or rent something while it was rebuilt, make a bunch of trips to Ikea and other places and use this as the excuse we've wanted for a while to remodel the kitchen.

    If you're the kind of person that can actually afford to live in a house that costs $1,000,000 you're someone who should know how to adapt and see challenges not problems... and your family should be too.

    So... what in the name of hell justifies paying $30,000,000 for this? Did they try to bring a case against the company who sold it and when they couldn't find that company, they immediately said "JACKPOT!!!!". There are probably 10,000 lawyers all over America screaming "I'll take the case... If it takes 10 years and 12 appeals, I'll take the case... 50%!!!!"

    1. Re:$30 million? by eWarz · · Score: 1

      Hi there! I have to speak up here because I've lived primarily in TN my entire life (despite doing time in a number of other states, like CA, NJ, PA, etc). The Nashville area is one of the fastest growing areas in the US right now, and that particular area is full of very large (and very expensive) houses owned by very rich people thanks to an amazing music, healthcare, and tech driven economy. It doesn't surprise me that the lawsuit is worth 30 million. The people here can afford such a suit, and they can justify it. Normally I would have sympathy for Amazon, but I know from experience just how low their bar is set when it comes to third party sellers. Amazon should clean house and come up with more stringent guidelines.

    2. Re:$30 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what in the name of hell justifies paying $30,000,000 for this? Did they try to bring a case against the company who sold it and when they couldn't find that company, they immediately said "JACKPOT!!!!". There are probably 10,000 lawyers all over America screaming "I'll take the case... If it takes 10 years and 12 appeals, I'll take the case... 50%!!!!"

      This is a good opportunity for tort reform.

      The legal framework is already there. The Bill of Rights - the highest law in the land - is open ended, with unspecified rights retained by the people (9th Amendment) and reserved to the people (10th Amendment).

      The right to ethical practice of law is such a right. This affects not just the lawyers bringing a suit, but also the judge(s) hearing the case. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when alternatives exist.

      Let's suppose that 300 million consists of reasonable punitive damages, plus expenses. It is clearly inappropriate for the judges to allow lawyers involved to take half - or even more than reasonable expenses and time - since the judges (as legal professionals) are in a position of direct conflict of interest with respect to the pay of lawyers. They also have an indirect conflict of interest, as associations of lawyers make large campaign contributions to the politicians that select most judges - and thus the future career of a judge depends on keeping the lawyers happy.

      Similarly, it is inappropriate for the persons bringing the suit to receive this amount in a jury trial, as the jury would be in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to making such an award (in the hope that they themselves could benefit from a similar ruling in the future).

      It follows that the majority of the damages (the punitive part) can go neither to the defendant nor to the defendant's lawyers, in order to be consistent with the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the plaintiff could be required to donate them to a charity. We might require it be a charity not operating in their area, and one that does not employ any members of their family or friends, just to be sure that not ethics lines are crossed.

      Also, a right to public oversight over the legal profession arises under the 9th and 10th Amendments. This disallows any form of secret agreement - once the matter has been brought before the government by filing suit, the public is entitled to full details.

      Since the Bill of Rights already determines a lot about what must happen here (assuming Amazon is found to be at fault), it will be interesting to see how things play out. More and more often we are seeing the US legal profession ignore it's obligations under the Bill of Rights, especially the obligations involving ethics - will that happen here?

  32. Damage to Amazon's reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more there are dishonest sales through Amazon, in my experience.

    That damages Amazon's reputation.

  33. Insert joke by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1
    • Home in Nashville - $1M
    • Knock-off hoverboard - $10
    • ???
    • Priceless.
  34. Bad Suit by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    First Amazon is not the seller. A strong analogy would be a flea market in which a seller rents a booth and sells what he has. The flea market does not have access to the product or any need to see, know about, or understand anything about the product. The flea market only profits form renting the booth or maybe also operating a hot dog stand, but makes no money from the seller, selling the product. Imagine the issues if a flea market had to evaluate every item sold by the vendors. How could Amazon exist if they had to evaluate every new or used product sold on Amazon? I think some lawyer is simply taking these peoples money.

  35. Personal responsibility by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for the consequences of your own stupid choices? People buy the cheapest junk they can find so they can save a few bucks. Then they act surprised when they find it's made from cheap parts and shitty overseas workmanship. I bet the same people complain when the government intervenes by banning these shitty products for peoples own safety.

    Is it the factories fault for undercutting their competition to manufacture the cheapest product? Is it the workers faults for lack of skill, or not caring because they are overworked and underpaid? Is it the merchants fault for selling the cheapest product people are actually willing to buy? Is it Amazons fault for letting merchants sell low quality products? Or is it the consumers fault for buying the cheapest crap possible? They are all at fault, but the manufacturer wouldn't make, the merchants wouldn't trade, and Amazon wouldn't sell the product if consumers didn't ultimately buy it.

    Or just sue the company with the most money.

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    1. Re:Personal responsibility by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Low-quality goods may look bad, they may fall apart fast, etc., but they aren't supposed to be positively dangerous. There are a few requirements on quality: it must be able to perform its stated purpose (not necessarily for long), and it must not be dangerous.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  36. It's not a feckin' hoverboard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't a hoverboard!!!! Get it right in the reporting! It's probably also not Amazon's fault, it's probably the seller's. Amazon provides a marketplace for a lot of sellers that aren't Amazon, and certainly cannot vet every offering of every merchant any more than eBay could. and..IT'S NOT A HOVERBOARD!

  37. ...instead of a brand with a Samsung...battery... by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

    It alleges the family was sold a counterfeit product from China instead of a brand with a Samsung lithium ion battery they believed they were buying from Amazon.

    The smoldering remains of their million-dollar home seem to indicate otherwise...