Amazon Sold Eclipse Glasses That Cause 'Permanent Blindness,' Alleges Lawsuit (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A South Carolina couple claims in a proposed federal class-action lawsuit (PDF) that Amazon sold defective eclipse-watching glasses that partially blinded them during the historic coast-to-coast solar eclipse on August 21. Corey Payne and fiance Kayla Harris say in their lawsuit that because of the eyewear Payne purchased from Amazon, the couple is now suffering from "blurriness, a central blind spot, increased sensitivity, changes in perception of color, and distorted vision." Amazon issued a recall of defective and perhaps counterfeit eclipse eyewear in an e-mail sent out to customers before the event. Payne said he did not receive the message. His suit seeks to represent others who were injured or may be injured from the eyewear purchased on Amazon. The alleged Tennessee-based maker of the glasses, American Paper Optics, is not named in the suit. The suit seeks funds "for medical monitoring" because "Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have or will experience varying degrees of eye injury ranging from temporary discomfort to permanent blindness." The suit also demands unspecified monetary damages, punitive damages, and legal fees and costs.

Comments

Stupidity

[MightyMartian]

I remember back in the day being told that it wasn't safe to look at the sun even with heavily filtered/polarized glasses during an eclipse. Not even welding masks or goggles were safe, and the only safe way to look at an eclipse was via an indirect method like a pinhole projector. Even now I see the warnings suggest that even with "proper" viewing glasses, you really shouldn't expose yourself for more than a few minutes.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "no more than a few minutes" (if not seconds) is the key thing. I can imagine many tards who spent thousands on this event could watch the whole thing non-stop.

Re:Stupidity

[SCVonSteroids]

I did some quick research on this and, apparently shade 12 and more is sufficient to view with a welding mask. I don't know the details about the different intensities, but I figured if anything could be used it would be a welding mask.

Re:Stupidity

[Nutria]

Shade 14 electric arc welding goggle are safe for viewing solar eclipses.

Re:Stupidity

[robinsonne]

This is what I used for the eclipse and I can see just fine afterwards.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

#14 or higher glass for arc welding is what you need.

Most people have 10 to 12 tho as thats what most come with.
That would let you look near the sun. around it. for fractions of a second at a time.
  but not at it. you'll feel it if you do.

Re:Stupidity

[cdsparrow]

Big news here: staring at a huge unshielded nuclear reaction may be harmful to eyesight! I'm aghast!

Seriously though, put the glasses on and look at the sun before the eclipse, if it hurts your eyes doing that, guess what, it'll hurt when you look at the eclipse. This isn't rocket science... These people probably bought the glasses specifically so they could sue afterword, lol.

Re:Stupidity

[WaffleMonster]

Seriously though, put the glasses on and look at the sun before the eclipse, if it hurts your eyes doing that, guess what, it'll hurt when you look at the eclipse. This isn't rocket science... These people probably bought the glasses specifically so they could sue afterword, lol.

Much safer test -- if you attach a sun filter to your eyeballs, binoculars or telescope and can see ANYTHING through it at all when not looking directly at the sun your using the WRONG filter.

Re:Stupidity

[MBGMorden]

The "more than a few minutes" thing is outdated. Basically, if you have proper, certified, modern glasses, you can stare at the sun with no time limit. If you have counterfeits though, then obvious YMMV.

Re:Stupidity

[GrumpySteen]

That's actually a much more dangerous test. Blocking 100% of visible light does not mean that 100% (or any) UV light is being blocked. UV light is what does the majority of the damage when you look at the sun.

Re:Stupidity

[sexconker]

Of course it's safe. It just depends on how long you're going to be staring at it.

Have you ever seen a sunset? Ever caught a pop fly playing baseball?
Risk and severity of damage is directly proportional to intensity of exposure times duration of exposure. If you use something that blocks 50% of the light, then you're doubling the amount of time you can stare at it safely (assuming you're blocking all relevant wavelengths, and not just the visible spectrum).

Re:Stupidity

[sjames]

And that's why I made a couple of pinhole projector boxes the weekend before (and why our cereal was in plastic bags in the pantry).

Re:Stupidity

[ChrisMaple]

To whom are you referring? Neither the Hildebeast nor Fakahontis is Jewish.
Americans generally aren't too much bothered by Jews. It's the obvious fakery of the LDS, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, et. al. that upset people.

Re:Stupidity

[murdocj]

Right. Because a president who pulled us out of a recession, created years of steady growth and full employment, and brought health care to millions of people is the same as a psychopath who cares only that people worship him.

People like you are already blind, even if you don't know it.

Re:Stupidity

[msauve]

I'm gonna go with NASA and AAS over an AC with no references on this one:

Experts suggests that one widely available filter for safe solar viewing is welders glass of sufficiently high number. The only ones that are safe for direct viewing of the Sun with your eyes are those of Shade 12 or higher.

- NASA AAS

Myself, I used a Thousand Oaks SolarView filter on a C8.

Re:Stupidity

[ayesnymous]

The AAS says as long as your glasses are certified ISO 12312-2 (adopted in 2015), you can wear them indefinitely (that's a lot longer than 3 minutes at a time):

https://eclipse.aas.org/eye-sa...

You can wear welding masks as long as they are shade 14:

https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/s...

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we had a president who did such things. Instead we got lowest GDP growth rates for the longest period ever and "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". When your version shows up, let us know so I can vote for him.

Re: Stupidity

[publiclurker]

He did son, but you are too racist to admit it and prefer lying as an excuse for your embarrassing lack of morals.

Re:Stupidity

[mark-t]

Welding glasses/goggles can be perfectly safe for viewing the sun, as long as they are shade 14 or darker.

Re:Stupidity

[Orgasmatron]

I can see through #14 lenses. Inside, I can see incandescent and LED bulbs. Outside, I can see the sky (on a sunny day). Which is odd, because many years ago when I did arc welding in high school, I couldn't see a damn thing through the #10 lenses until I got the arc going. My theory is that I always did that back in a dimly lit shop.

Just to be safe, I asked a guy who welds every day if he could identify a #10 lens by looking through it. As soon as he got them on he said "Wow, these are dark!" And then I told him that they were #14s for solar viewing.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

That was basically the method I used. Look for a few seconds, look away for 5 minutes, rinse and repeat.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

I did this with the cheap glasses from Amazon and could stare comfortably at the full sun the day before the eclipse. But the test wasn't sufficient - I find there is a faint damaged patch in one eye now, detectable when I blink. My advice is to go with indirect methods. The fairly elaborate pinhole setup I also used, while clear, was unimpressive compared to shooting a picture through the glasses with a digital camera.

In retrospect, t was pointless and insane for people across America to trust their vision (!) to some $5 device off Amazon when we all have cellphones. Instead of making vague points about cardboard boxes and #14 (#12? #16?) filters, all those websites should have showed exact instructions for using a filter with a cell phone or camera, and coupled that with pictures showing exactly what to expect from it.

Or, maybe, a live feed from an observatory showing what the astronomers were seeing.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is BS. No welder's mask of any number is going to let enough UV through from the sun to damage your eyes.

It might just be too bright to view comfortably, that's all.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS, indeed! I remember seeing the partial eclipse in 1984 from Iowa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_30,_1984
We were absolutely inundated with news about how not to look at it, welding goggles were insufficient, and how to make a pinhole projector which we did.

I was pretty interested in how, this same message was not disseminated widely in 2017 - I mean we know how much more idiotic the population has become since 1984. This was 100% expected, with or without a counterfeit product.

That still capture of Donald Trump glancing at the sun just says it all...

Re:Stupidity

[thegarbz]

Even now I see the warnings suggest that even with "proper" viewing glasses, you really shouldn't expose yourself for more than a few minutes.

If you see a warning like that then throw the glasses away and buy proper ones without the quotes.

Re:Stupidity

[thegarbz]

Even now I see the warnings suggest that even with "proper" viewing glasses, you really shouldn't expose yourself for more than a few minutes.

Proper solar filters allow you to stare at the sun indefinitely. I have no problem staring at the sun through a powerful telescope and my eclipse glasses are made from the same material as the filter on my scope.

People need to buy eclipse glasses without quotes around the word proper.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the issue though.

UV is irrelevant. It's visible light that is the hazard here.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he showed up for 8 years and made Jimmy Carter look like a great President.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

#12 or darker is recommended for solar viewing. #12 is safe but a bit too bright for comfortable viewing in my opinion. #13 is optimal. #14 is rather dark for viewing the sun. #15 is useless.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

UV and IR are the problems when looking through a filter, because you can't perceive them. A filter that blocks visible but passes IR will look fine but will damage your eyes. UV is less of a danger because most common materials block a lot of UV. There are many materials that block visible but pass IR. Especially plastics. Common trash bags are an example. They are opaque to visible light, but are completely transparent in Infrared.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the link you posted? Arc welding filters of shade 12 or darker are safe. 14 is really rather too dark. I find shade 13 to be optimal, and thats what I've used to view every eclipse and transit to date.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

From the NASA link you posted, but didn't read:

The only ones that are safe for direct viewing of the Sun with your eyes are those of Shade 12 or higher.

Re: Stupidity

[Ecuador]

I beg to differ. There are perfectly safe filters available which you can use to watch the sun indefinitely. Like many into amateur astronomy I've watched the sun for hours using a Baader astrosolar ND5.0 filter (or an ND3.8 + narrowband) even without an eclipse (brighter than an eclipse sun of course) and that filter doesn't even fit the latest stricter ISO (it lets a harmless amount of UV to allow things like CA II K line imaging). And as far as I know at least shade 14 welding masks are also fine.
I did order cheap unbranded eclipse specs out of curiosity and they were indeed obviously dangerous, but that doesn't mean there are no safe ways to observe the sun directly.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither the Hildebeast nor Fakahontis is Jewish.

You sound like a fucking idiot.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Typicaly whenever someone says something is impossible they are wrong.

Take "impossible" alchemy for example. It's actually possible to transmute various metals into gold for example, it's just much more expensive to do so than the market value of gold. (and is rather dangerous)

Re: Stupidity

[OakDragon]

We were talking about eclipse viewers, right?

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Stagnant wages, massive drop in labor force participation rate, record high food stamp usage, doubling of the national debt, record high consumer debt, falling home ownership... Yep, we put a LOT on the ol' credit card - as a nation and individually - to "buy" the illusion of success!

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine until the counterfeit glasses start marking themselves as ISO certified. Which is exactly what happened.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, I've got clear lenses that block a lot of UV, and virtually no UV light, and I've got sunglasses that block all the UV and only most of the visible light.

Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing how much light outside the spectrum is being blocked without specialized equipment. Which is why certifications are so important. I used glasses made by Lunt and I've seen no vision changes of any sort since the eclipse.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but also keep in mind that these things deteriorate over time. My eclipse glasses warned against using them if they're more than a year old. Also, if they've been scratched, bent or otherwise damaged they may not provide the indicated level of protection.

Re: Stupidity

[bev_tech_rob]

Yes, he showed up for 8 years and made Jimmy Carter look like a great President.

You obviously weren't around when Carter was president. Obama was ten times better of a president than Carter was. I just wish Bill Clinton could run again.

Re:Stupidity

[MBGMorden]

The expiration thing is outdated too, though indeed if they're scratched it's problematic

Per NASA's website:

Note: If your eclipse glasses or viewers are compliant with the ISO 12312-2 safety standard, you may look at the uneclipsed or partially eclipsed Sun through them for as long as you wish. Furthermore, if the filters aren't scratched, punctured, or torn, you may reuse them indefinitely. Some glasses/viewers are printed with warnings stating that you shouldn't look through them for more than 3 minutes at a time and that you should discard them if they are more than 3 years old. Such warnings are outdated and do not apply to eclipse viewers compliant with the ISO 12312-2 standard adopted in 2015.

Re: Stupidity

[LeftCoastThinker]

Let me jog your memory:

Carter: economy in the tank, middle east in shambles

Reagan: great economy, strong military, powerful posture collapsed the USSR. His conservative policies grew the economy so much that it outstripped his initial deficit spending.

Bush elder: caved to liberals, economy in the tank

Clinton: first two years, alt-left policies, Hillary care, AWB, etc., economy in the tank, got his ass handed to him in the mid terms, pivoted and passed all conservative legislation for 6 years and economy was great with budget surplus. Fingered interns in the oval office and signed a treaty with North Korea that gave us the nuclear North Korea with ICBMs that we know and love today...

Bush Jr: inherited dot com bubble and recession, 9-11 destroyed $4T in wealth 6 months into presidency, still managed to keep economy growing with real unemployment under 6% for 7 years. Bad actor states behaved for the most part in fear of being whacked like Afghanistan and Iraq. These include Lybia giving up it's nuclear weapons, Iran and Pakistan behaving themselves, etc.

Obama: inherited a similar sized recession as Bush Jr., made it 10x worse by giving his cronies the stimulus money instead of leveraging it to actually solve the housing crisis. Tanked the economy at 1% growth for 8 years with Obamacare and Executive Order regulation. More EO than any other president, more EO overturned as unconstitutional than any other president. Doubled the national debt to nearly $20,000,000,000,000. Left the white house with the middle east on fire, paid $20,000,000,000 in pallets of cash to Iran in ransom money, let a nuclear North Korea develop ICBMs... I could go on.

Trump: Mostly so far focused on undoing all the damage to the country and economy done by Obama. Economy is set to grow at least 3% this year, or as much as it grew in the last 3 years of the Obama term combined. Trump is stuck dealing with the middle east in flames, 40M people on food stamps, real unemployment north of 10%, 10-20M illegal aliens infiltrating the country and the list goes on.

The pattern here is clear. Democrats focus on theory and cock up reality every time they try to implement their ideology. Conservatives focus on what is reasonable, fact driven and is known to work and when they are in control the economy does better (we still have a recession about every 6-8 years of growth, that is just the cycle). When conservatives are in power, the world at large is also safer and more peaceful for the vast majority of the world.

Re: Stupidity

[Brockmire]

Elizabeth Warren?

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is false. Surely you must make sure your equipment is up to the ISO-12312-2 standard, but to say it is unsafe no matter what the filter is false. You must also make sure there are no scratches or other damage to your filter. Two others and I viewed the eclipse through Celestron Eclipsmart binoculars. Our eyesight is unchanged. These binoculars can be used year-round to observe sunspots.

Re:Stupidity

[ebvwfbw]

Depends on the welding mask. Gas welding - hell no. You will regret it. Arc welding - no problem. I've observed many eclipses and partial eclipses using a good old 1960s era arc welding mask. I think the filter cartridge is from the 1970s. No after image, no problems. This last time I observed a partial eclipse for probably over 10 minutes total. Some people feel it is a bit more comfortable also using sun glasses.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's interesting to know, it's probably a combination of CYA as well as the reality that people are probably not going to take good care of the glasses in the mean time.

The fact that they'd sell more glasses probably doesn't hurt them.

Re: Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not it's safe to look for more than a few minutes at a time, you miss out on a lot of other stuff that's going on by looking for so long. I'd look up for a short period, then I'd look to see what the shadows were doing and what the animals were doing. I'd pay attention to the drop in temperature from the IR being blocked by the moon and all just savoring the moment with the people who were there.

But, my glasses were compliant, so I should have been able to stare the whole time without any problems. Right now, I have no vision changes, so I'm not concerned about the glasses being what they say they were.

Aren't they an ops company?

[Chrontius]

You'd think Amazon of all companies could have kept a close eye on their supply chain for these things

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[known_coward_69]

Lately almost everything sold on amazon is sold by third party and amazon just does warehouse, shipping and billing. a lot of stuff is shipped by the third party as well.

they try to play the game like a common carrier but it won't last for long

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? They are only slightly less dodgy than eBay. All kinds of off-brand crap from China.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Neuronwelder]

Ahh, if only.. One can hope. But with no Anti-Trust laws to regulate company size..

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[__aaclcg7560]

Lately almost everything sold on amazon is sold by third party and amazon just does warehouse, shipping and billing.

I've ordered a half-dozen boxes of granola bars from a third-party on Amazon only to find out that they kept five dollars and ordered from Walmart. That's only when Walmart has the granola bars on sale. Otherwise the can't collect their five bucks. I just order direct from Walmart.

Re: Aren't they an ops company?

[Miamicanes]

The problem is that Amazon doesn't keep merchandise segregated by seller. So vendor #1 can do everything right, source high-quality ISO-certified glasses, and send them to Amazon for warehousing & fulfillment. Vendors #2 through 87 can buy counterfeit glasses with identical packaging and send them to Amazon. A customer orders glasses from the reputable vendor, but Amazon sends him a counterfeit pair... then fucks the reputable seller because it can't be bothered to even TRY and tell them apart.

That's why it's so common to see reviews on Amazon that don't even seem to be for the same product... often, they *aren't*. One person gets a legit item & writes a good review. Another person gets a knockoff item that fails, and writes a one-star review. Eventually, Amazon just lashes out & indiscriminately punishes everyone, bad AND good alike. They don't actually *care* about trite folkways like "justice" when it's cheaper to just smash everyone within 10 feet with a sledgehammer.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people make their living by chasing sales and selling them on sites like Ebay and Amazon. Its called retail arbitrage and unfortunately sometimes people get irrationally upset when sellers forget price labels or they come in clearly marked packaging from elsewhere. The fact is, the buyer isn't the one who spent all day going through websites and clearance isles looking for that $5 profit. I know people who do this and they have to pay people to help them because it is so much work. The seller deserves the profit he makes. Think of it like your helping the little guy make a profit on the big box retailer. The buyer isn't a victim here. Also, I don't do retail arbitrage, lest anyone think I am just defending myself.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

granola bars

Power bars, you mean. They're slightly less healthy than granola bars, and we know when you go for unhealthy, you go all in, creimer.

Otherwise the can't collect their five bucks. I just order direct from Walmart.

Sounds like creimer's bummed he didn't think of this as a scam first. You'd probably make better money doing this than your other "businesses," champ.

Re: Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how Amazon works.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the software i use scrapes 32 retailers with over 5000 items and do drop shipping through Amazon.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you make the protein smoothies I suggested to you a few days ago?

You can get hemp protein by the bucket, and I'm pretty sure in California you have restaurant supply stores where you can buy frozen berries in much larger bags than the supermarket. You can make a month's worth of frozen smoothies in about an hour if you prep just a little bit.

Even in the tiny place you inhabit (my place is not much bigger, but my kitchen is bigger). Unless you have a tiny fridge?

Re: Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Creiner doesn't cook or use a fridge. He just gets wheeled over to the dumpster out back when he "goes out". Otherwise they just pour the lard into his gullet via a cement truck pump.

Re: Aren't they an ops company?

[dbraden]

That's exactly how Amazon works. You actually have to pay a higher fee to Amazon if you want your inventory physically separated from other vendors' inventory. They call it "commingling".

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the item is a loss leader then this is a problem; the loss becomes profit for the arbitrage business. People trying to buy 30 bottles of coke when it's on sale with a "limit 4" condition, for example.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude doesn't need to worry about protein, he just needs to count calories.

Plus, why get hemp protein, in a world in which you can just get whey protein - or better yet, eggs are like $1.50/dozen right now? Plant proteins don't have amino acids in ideal proportion.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[jordanjay29]

To be fair, Walmart ordered the same granola bars from its supplier at less than the cost you paid. Sure, they order in bulk, but they also have to open boxes, stock shelves, and staff their stores so you can find all the products in one convenient location. Are you upset that they figured out a way to make a profit on you?

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[rsborg]

Actually, the software i use scrapes 32 retailers with over 5000 items and do drop shipping through Amazon.

This. It's like the guys who simply copy stuff from help websites and publish them as books on Amazon and make a tidy profit - it's all automated.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer also always order in bulk, what do you think? Even then, it doesn't matter how much he eats, he always stays empty.
See here to understand what I mean:
https://school.discoveryeducat...

Re: Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hemp protein is one of the closest amino acid profiles to humans.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dude doesn't need to worry about protein, he just needs to count calories."

That's why I went with one scoop of 50% powder, despite his claims of massive muscle and grueling weight training, he's just a soft office worker.

Whey protein constipates me, makes my farts smell funny (not as bad as albumin powder though) and is generally flavored in nauseating aromas.

Hemp protein is cheap now. Plus creimer has a problem with eggs. Why, I don't know.

Re: Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled "chump" wrong.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the stuff Amazon ships you have to worry about ... they keep items from their "preferred" third party sellers in their own warehouses for direct fulfillment, and have been known in many cases to mix it up with their own inventory, leading to a rash of counterfeit goods being sold directly by Amazon to its customers that were supplied by third party sellers.

Personally, I use Amazon or eBay these days to identify highly-rated sellers that have their own websites, then try to buy from those websites instead. Much more accountability that way when you can get an actual person on the phone to look at the actual details of your order.

Amazon has a pretty decent claim system but you're at the mercy of a faceless bureaucracy who really doesn't care if you get what you ordered at the end of the day.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[wardrich86]

kept a close eye on their supply

Maybe the close eye that they assigned demoed a pair of defective glasses beforehand.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Luthair]

There is another one where someone lists a product higher on ebay than they can buy it from Amazon, then has Amazon ship the item directly to the ebay purchaser.

If the purchaser happens to notice that the item is cheaper on Amazon they might return it, the ebay seller loses nothing and the company using Amazon for shipping eats shipping costs and has a product that is now 'used'.

Re:Aren't they an ops company?

[Anonymous Coward]

When an item is returned, eBay will keep the ~10% fee they charge, and usually PayPal will keep a ~3% fee.

Returning an item does cost the seller.

This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like suing a car dealership because GM built a defective car and they didn't get a recall notice.

Re:This is stupid.

[freeze128]

The couple bought some glasses on Amazon for viewing the eclipse. When Amazon found out that the glasses wouldn't be safe for that, they issued a recall. Not only that, but the recall notice was in the NATIONAL NEWS! People I know who don't shop on Amazon, or are interested in the eclipse knew about the recall. ***Why didn't the plaintiffs?***

Summary judgement for the defendant.

Re:This is stupid.

[tomhath]

Lawyers will always sue the company that has the most money.

Re:This is stupid.

[Lord_Jeremy]

I shop on Amazon and I was interested in the eclipse. I sure as hell didn't hear about a recall notice.

Re:This is stupid.

[Cederic]

I didn't buy any eclipse protecting glasses and I'm not even in the US, and I heard about the recall.

But it is possible, however unlikely, that someone that bought glasses and was emailed by Amazon about the recall did manage to miss that email, miss the media coverage and also be stupid enough to stare at the sun through their shitty glasses.

So I wouldn't want to predict the outcome of this legal action at all.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The couple bought some glasses on Amazon for viewing the eclipse. When Amazon found out that the glasses wouldn't be safe for that, they issued a recall. Not only that, but the recall notice was in the NATIONAL NEWS! People I know who don't shop on Amazon, or are interested in the eclipse knew about the recall. ***Why didn't the plaintiffs?***

Summary judgement for the defendant.

This is the reason I can't see this lawsuit going anywhere...

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who ordered recalled glasses would have received an email to the address on file with Amazon - I know I received multiple.

Almost every news program - national as well as local covered the recall.

Almost every media site even tangentially interested in the eclipse seemed to cover the recall. Slashdot covered it, every tech site that I visited seemed to have a mention of it somewhere in the headlines.

Yes some people might have missed it, but it wasn't some sort of stealth recall that was kept hidden.

Re:This is stupid.

[Keith_Beef]

I'm also not in the US, but I was following the announcements in the run-up to the eclipse, and discussing it with family and friends over there.

I didn't know anything about the sub-standard glasses, or about the recall, until reading about it in El Reg this morning.

Recently, I went on a trip to Portugal for a week; no cellphone service and wifi for an hour each morning and each evening when I was in my rented accommodation. It's easy, even over here in densely populated Europe, to drop off the internet for a seek or two. If I'd decided to go out into a sparsely populated bit of the US to watch an eclipse away from the light pollution of the cities, it would certainly have been easy to miss a recall.

Re:This is stupid.

[Keith_Beef]

should have read "for a week or two"!

Re:This is stupid.

[deadweight]

I bought eclipse glasses on Amazon. If not for reading about their issues *here on Slashdot*, I would have had no idea what was up. They did not ship them, but never said why or even notified me.

Amazon seems to prefer revenue over quality...

[QuietLagoon]

Try buying genuine Duracell batteries on the amazon.com site. I see a lot of comments saying that the batteries are not real Duracell.

Re:Amazon seems to prefer revenue over quality...

[Anonymous Coward]

whats a duracell?

Re:Amazon seems to prefer revenue over quality...

[Tablizer]

I see a lot of [Amazon] comments saying that the batteries are not real Duracell.

I hear ya. I ordered a Galaxy Note 7 for the 4th of July, and the damned thing would not blow up. Goddam fake!

Re:Amazon seems to prefer revenue over quality...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a common brand of battery.

Re: Amazon seems to prefer revenue over quality...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here yes, but not everywhere.

Joey Bada$$ and Donald T. will help Amazon...

[ffkom]

... by testifying to the court that looking at the sun without protective eye-wear is just fine. Everything else is just fake news.

Re:Joey Bada$$ and Donald T. will help Amazon...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump didn't look at the eclipse, the moon looked directly at Trump as it crossed the Sun and President Trump gave it a stern warning, "You have to go back".

Thus, ended the eclipse.

you just knew this was going to happen

[turkeydance]

didn't you?

To be fair...

[Pfhorrest]

...the glasses didn't so much cause permanent blindness as they merely failed to prevent permanent blindness.

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... who cares?

Re:To be fair...

[Pfhorrest]

People with a sense of humor, and pedants for being technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

Re:To be fair...

[Citizen of Earth]

When you feel pain, stop looking at the sun.

Re:To be fair...

[david_thornley]

By that time, it may be too late.

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you feel pain, stop looking at the sun.

There are no pain receptors on the retina. You feel "pain" because it's really bright, but that reaction is strictly in the brain. If it's not bright enough (via visible light) to trigger that reaction by the brain, then you'll happily stare in perfect comfort as the non-visible UV and IR burn away your retina.

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't necessarily sufficient. When the sliver is small enough, the pain apparently isn't that bad (I don't know, I wasn't foolish enough to see for myself), but the UV damages your eyes regardless.

What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Nutria]

Can you win a lawsuit with a car company over a fault if they've already sent recall notices?

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[networkBoy]

But this is worse!
It's tantamount to suing the dealership where you bought your car after a recall notice by the manufacturer.
The fact that the (likely) tiny manufacturer isn't even named in the suit smacks of a money grab, pure and simple. I'm willing to bet money that Amazon's lawyers knew this type of thing was going to happen the moment they issued the recall, and have been preparing for it.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, they aren't even suing the car company. They're suing "Honest Jeff's Used Cars and Various Chinese Sundries".

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Can you win a lawsuit with a car company over a fault if they've already sent recall notices?

IANAL, but I would imagine that the answer depends on whether the recall notice actually reached the victim and whether the victim actually read the notice or (legally) should have read the notice.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[markdavis]

Yep

Amazon is just a seller, they didn't make the product, they might not have even sourced it (third-party seller just uses Amazon to collect the money and arrange shipping). So it is even less liability still than a car dealer, I would think it would be limited to returning the money paid during the transaction. It would be more like suing Ebay because someone bought something through it that caused damage. Or suing the credit card company because they enabled and was involved in the transaction.

Here is the real irony- there is a danger in Amazon issuing any type of recall, because that actually might shift MORE liability to them because then they are taking it on themselves to try and police what is or is not safe. It is a lot like if an ISP tries to filter data to prevent malware or violations copyright law, it could be construed that they are now responsible when they don't prevent malware or violations of copyright law.

At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own safety and do some research. And the company that MADE the glasses, if they were defective, should be held accountable and sued.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The fact that the (likely) tiny manufacturer isn't even named in the suit smacks of a money grab, pure and simple.

Don't jump to conclusions. I've read that the manufacturer named in the summary makes accredited products. Amazon is named as the defendant quite possibly because it is said to have a practice of mixing inventories of the same product from different sellers in their warehouse. A practice like that makes it possible for genuine products to be mixed with ones of unknown provenance from untrustworthy sellers. The defective product may not be fake.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[sjames]

Amazon mixing stock from multiple vendors may have introduced a liability. Consider, customer a well known brand made by a well certified legitimate vendor from Amazon. Actually gets a counterfeit pair from a different vendor because Amazon co-mingled the stock. Relying on legit vendor's assurances they use the glasses....

Moral of the story: If you offer brand A from vendor A and someone orders it, you damned well better not ship knock-off A from vendor B.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Wycliffe]

Amazon mixing stock from multiple vendors may have introduced a liability. Consider, customer a well known brand made by a well certified legitimate vendor from Amazon. Actually gets a counterfeit pair from a different vendor because Amazon co-mingled the stock. Relying on legit vendor's assurances they use the glasses....

Moral of the story: If you offer brand A from vendor A and someone orders it, you damned well better not ship knock-off A from vendor B.

Do you have any proof they do this? I'm pretty certain they don't do it this way. I'm fairly certain that stock for each seller stays separate and they are just storing it for them.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think airbags. We already have lawsuits underway.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[sjames]

About a zillion references.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Wycliffe]

About a zillion references.

Wow. This was a really stupid idea. It looks like it is optional but it makes no sense. It appears they might even be co-mingling third party items with their own items. I will have to start reconsidering my purchases on amazon. This makes amazon products less trustworthy than ebay. It also doesn't really make sense. Why would you buy a new product and send it to amazon when amazon should in theory always be able to buy in bulk cheaper than you.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how exactly do you propose I find which company "MADE" the glasses, when I place an order for American Paper Optics, and receive a pair of glasses which say "American Paper Optics" but actually turn out to be counterfeit.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[gravewax]

depending on the effort they made to notify people of the recall, definitely! If like Amazon they only emailed for a potentially hazardous recall item then you would almost certainly have a good case.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[thegarbz]

Not at all. The effort and emails depend on the primary communication method. If the only way Amazon ever contacts you is via email then you don't have much of a case at all.

If however they often send you spam snail mail and then suddenly something important only comes out via email, then you have a case.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Hognoxious]

Amazon is just a seller

In which case they bear the responsibility - though they can in turn sue their supplier, and so on.

If you went to a restaurant and ate a steak and it gave you food poisoning would you accept "take it up with the butcher" as an answer?

Re: What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you going to sue an anonymous Chinese manufacturer in American court? Lawyers go after the one who is most likely to pay.
And American Paper Optics was on the NASA approved list for eclipse glasses, so the plaintiff wouldn't have received a recall notice for their glasses.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[torkus]

I'd look to the various amazon guarantees they offer to help determine their level of culpability.

Assuming they warranty everything "we stand behind every amazon purchase" or similar, then yes...they stand behind those purchases.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[torkus]

They do mix stock, but not always. it's cheaper for sellers to do it, but many who sell legit versions of often-counterfitted goods know better and don't bother.

My experience has been mixed. 3rd party seller directly shipped me a (very bad) knock-off for a designer pictureframe/shadowbox. It wasn't comingled as they mailed it themselves...but the re-order as a direct amazon purchase came exactly as described.

I know better than to order apple chargers or wires from amazon (but that's what anker is for).

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[sjames]

Even if they make no statement on it, a court might easily find that knowingly selling a no-name knock off as the genuine article introduces liability.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Some of it, at least, is the result of places which are too small to sell to the usual overstock buyers--those tend to want truckloads and you may only ever have a box or two at a time--who just want to recover a decent % of the cost while having it stop haunting their shelves.

Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall?

[Wycliffe]

Some of it, at least, is the result of places which are too small to sell to the usual overstock buyers--those tend to want truckloads and you may only ever have a box or two at a time--who just want to recover a decent % of the cost while having it stop haunting their shelves.

I have a family member that sells on amazon. His stuff is surplus, lost freight, damaged freight, and other stuff of unknown origin. There is no way for him to verify its authenticity. If it appears new, he sells it as new. I've purchased stuff on amazon sold as new that is misprints, etc... that I'm pretty sure are in a similar situation. They might be new but are obviously 2nd runs and although they might share the same UPC code, they are not the same quality item. In some cases, I suspect they might even be "destroyed stock" that didn't get properly destroyed or grey market stuff that shouldn't even be legally sold. In one specific case, my family member ended up with a brand new harley motorcycle that was supposed to have been destroyed and got a call from the harley dealership asking for it to be returned when he tried to get a lost title for it.

I suspect a scam

[Mike Van Pelt]

I bought a package of the glasses from Amazon (third party was Beemo) and got the email about a week before saying "Don't use them! Amazon has not received confirmation from the supplier of your order that they sourced the item from a recommended manufacturer."

They seemed adequately dark. The sun (from a brief glance) was a dim orange sphere, and nothing else can be seen through them.

I did go ahead and get a pair of the real deal glasses. They had a metallic look to them that the Beemo ones did not, but the sun looked the same through them. I suppose the arguably fake ones might be passing UV that the real ones don't.

Either way, I didn't stare at the sun for minutes through the legit ones, either, just a quick look every now and then.

I suspect some of this may be a paperwork issue rather than a real one, though there were apparently some really bad fakes that I haven't run across.

Re:I suspect a scam

[EkriirkE]

We also got recalled glasses and used them anyway, no problems noticeable yet. I always suspected the same as you: no certifications/paperwork, not necessarily defective

Re: I suspect a scam

[Miamicanes]

There were also a bunch of eclipse glasses made using film certified for photography, which is a tiny bit less-dark than what's officially required for direct viewing (especially by children... adults generally have some degree of pre-cataracts providing a bit of extra UV protection).

So, yeah. For adults, it's mainly a regulatory & certification matter. If you used them to look at the sun a few times pre- and post-totality, plus maybe 2-3 minutes before and after, you'd probably sustain more REAL damage from direct-viewing without glasses in the seconds before & after totality than the difference between camera- and direct-view-certified glasses would have prevented.

If you stared nonstop at the sun for an hour, you'd probably at least see lingering artifacts for a few hours EVEN WITH glasses that are certified to be safe, because that's just how human vision actually works.

Staring at the sun is bad, but the fact is, we ALL look directly at the sun a few times per year, even if it's just looking up into the sky, reflections from a mirror, or driving home from work with the sun straight ahead to the west at sunset. Humans are fragile, but we aren't *that* fragile. If we were, lots of us would be blind by adulthood.

IMHO, at least 99% of the "zOMG, I was blind3d by teh 3clipz" we're seeing now is just mass hysteria.

Re:I suspect a scam

[Solandri]

Two types of solar film (non-glass) dominate the market for solar filters in amateur astronomy circles. Black polymer by Thousand Oaks, and Baader astrosolar safety film. The black polymer is black (duh) and produces an aesthetically pleasing orange image of the sun. The Baader film is metallic and photographically superior to black polymer, but makes the sun appear a pale white-pink or white-blue.

Both types are used to produce legit eclipse glasses. Companies buy big sheets of them and cut them to fit in between paper glasses frames. Unfortunately there are dangerous knockoffs of both types (black and metallic).

Re:I suspect a scam

[jittles]

They had a metallic look to them that the Beemo ones did not, but the sun looked the same through them. I suppose the arguably fake ones might be passing UV that the real ones don't.

I spent a lot of time trying to find a decent filter for my camera and my understanding (which could be totally wrong) is that the metallic coating is to deal with IR and allow heat dissipation. You can apparently cook your eyeballs without knowing it. IR can also supposedly cook the sensor on your digital camera right through a neutral density filter, even if its an ND100000 filter that can safely filter out the UV and brightness of the sun itself.

Re:I suspect a scam

[advocate_one]

I suppose the arguably fake ones might be passing UV that the real ones don't.

Infra-red light is the real danger here...

Re: I suspect a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

The metallic look is likely from the UV/FIR reflecting coating. Welding glasses have it as well.

Re:I suspect a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Very rarely are you going to notice any problems immediately from using bad solar glasses. What most seem to not realize is that the danger is in the increased risk of cataracts. The only way defective glasses would cause immediate blindness was if they literally didn't shield anything and burned your retinas out. And in that case one would hope people would be intelligent enough to go "wow, looking at the sun with these is really painful, I should stop".

Re:I suspect a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

IR leads to cataracts, which are surely annoying although treatable.

Re:I suspect a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm sure that counterfeit glasses were out there, I have to say that paperwork issues abounded and many buyers (including myself) benefitted from them. In my case I bought 10 pairs of paper and film eclipse glasses from Amazon when they were on sale. About 10 days later, I received an email stating that the glasses might be counterfeit and recommending I not use them. (I also received a refund, unasked)

Rather than just throw them away I sacrificed a pair and decided to have some fun. I took a couple of LASERS and went to town. A 405nm 2 watt LASER did not penetrate the filter(at all). Nor did a 445nm LASER. Ditto for 808nm, 532nm, 635nm. Even focusing the LASERs directly on the film did not melt it due to the aluminum on the mylar. Satisfied that they blocked UV and IR sufficiently, I decided to try a pair on my phone camera. It blocked everything but the sun and the sun was quite dark and orange. Counterfeit or not, I came to the conclusion that the glasses worked. My friends and I used them and I took half of the 'test pair' and made a telescope filter that worked quite well.

The kicker- I received an email from the retailer (via Amazon) the day AFTER the eclipse. Attached was the ISO certification paperwork. Turns out I had received 10 pairs of certified glasses. I got them for free because the seller didn't provide the correct paperwork to Amazon in a timely fashion.

Re:I suspect a scam

[torkus]

Oddly enough, I have glasses that don't have the ISO numbers stamped on them and never got a recall notice.

Seems to have been a very inconsistent reporting/notification but that's not entirely surprising given how many different products were being added/removed/changed in the last couple weeks.

Re: I suspect a scam

[torkus]

You can glance at the sun briefly - your blink reflex is going to overwhelm you before you manager to do any damage generally.

The problem is near totality, the overall brightness is greatly reduced and isn't enough to trigger a hard blink reflex, but the spot brightness of the exposed portion of the sun is still just as dangerously bright and will cause damage despite it not hurting to look at.

You could stare at the sun for the full three hour eclipse with proper viewing glasses on and not have any artifacts beyond the ghost effect you get from looking at a black and white picture or a camera flash. It will last a few moments and nothing more - and it's not anything related to damaged retinas from staring at the sun without eye protection.

Re:I suspect a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the fake ones were simply that Amazon being unable to verify paperwork thus deciding to recall.

There were some legitimately fake ones. I bought a pack that were clearly fake when compared to my telescope filters (one Baader and one Thousand Oaks) as well as the other pack of Eclipse glasses. You could still make out trees and clouds with the fake ones, the real filters you couldn't see anything other than the sun.

Partial Solar eclipse frankly boring...

[Junta]

Totality is amazing, but the partial solar eclipse is boring. It's slightly interesting in the dimming and the temperature drop, but frankly not that different from a cloud. Yes you can see a glowing crescent and it's different, but it is just not that interesting...

Re:Partial Solar eclipse frankly boring...

[chihowa]

The shadows through the leaves are pretty damn cool.

Re:Partial Solar eclipse frankly boring...

[LunaticTippy]

I saw about 75% obscured and found it to be compelling. I'm motivated by the experience to trek to the next convenient totality. Perhaps I'll find partials boring afterwards, but for now I'll continue enjoying it in bumpkin mode.

Re:Partial Solar eclipse frankly boring...

[Zontar The Mindless]

OMG yes, one of the neatest things I've ever seen in my life. That was some years ago. Thanks very much for bringing back the memory.

Re:Partial Solar eclipse frankly boring...

[rsborg]

The shadows through the leaves are pretty damn cool.

Had to look this up - here's a quora with the image of crescent shadows:

https://www.quora.com/What-cau...

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I picture them being advertised that way

Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets!

[oldgraybeard]

They should really be suing the Retailer with the Amazon store, but where is the huge pay out there ;)
It will be interesting to see how this turns out! Amazon has a boat load of cash to pay out, but they also could use that boat load of cash to hire armies of the best lawyers in the country.

My take, the "Scum Sucking" lawyers doing this will not win the Law Suit Lottery!!!

Re:Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets!

[Anonymous Coward]

Contract law says your primary claim is with the person or company you have a contract with. The customer has a contract with Amazon: customer pays Amazon, Amazon ships glasses that it has promised are safe for viewing the eclipse. Under traditional common law, the doctrine of privity said that the customer had the right to sue Amazon for breach of contract, but could not sue the manufacturer because there was no contractual relationship between the customer and Amazon (see, e.g., Winterbottom v. Wright). As to Amazon, under traditional common law Hawkins v. McGee established that Amazon is liable for the full value of its failure to deliver on the promises it made in the sales contract.

This changed with the tort and liability revolution of the mid-20th century, but it's important to remember that if we reversed that expansion of tort and liability law, then we would go back to where the customer could sue Amazon but not the manufacturer.

Re:Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't the retailer. It's amazon itself: I bought official branded American Paper Optics glasses from the correct product listing and Fulfilled by Amazon, but Amazon's warehouse sent me counterfeits with all the same text printed except for a few typos (and a different light filter). The product packaging had two stickers on top of each other with different barcodes.

So it was Amazon's own warehouse that messed up and gave me counterfeits (or a fake seller using Amazon's platform to ship counterfeit products). The fake sellers are clearly at fault, but not much that can be done about that now. However, I believe Amazon is also at fault for doing the actual shipping of unsafe products on a product page which claims ISO and CE certification.

Who else do you think should have been sued here? The vendor American Paper Optics shipped no bad glasses, nor did brick and mortar stores who bought directly from the suppliers (I ended up getting mine at an ACE and could verify they were authentic).

Re:Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets!

[Anonymous Coward]

> they also could use that boat load of cash to hire armies of the best lawyers in the country

You think they don't already employ just such an army? These people are in for a fight. Should have gone after the manufacturer.

Re:Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they should be suing Amazon because they do comingled inventory without tracking the source of each item. Thanks to comingled inventory, the glasses they got might not have been sourced by the seller the end customer purchased from.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-amazon-pooled-merchandise-opens-door-to-knockoffs-1399852852

Re:Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets!

[Cinnamon Beige]

Amazon may not be able to shift blame, especially if this is 100% the result of their habit of commingling stock--if the plantiffs bought from a vendor who had been selling authentic eclipse glasses and Amazon shipped them fakes, it's Amazon's fuck up. The recall itself is probably not going to protect them here, precisely because Amazon doesn't practice what everybody else would consider good basic practices on inventory: You don't mix things unless you're absolutely certain they're the exact same thing. With something like eclipse glasses? Having vendors have to jump through hoops to even get listed at all would have been a Good Idea, with extra care given to being able to track back past you any malfunctioning or dysfunctional items back to whomever put them on your shelves.

Basically? Amazon fucked up due diligence, and has ensured that they cannot reliably shift liability back to the supplier.

Re:Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets!

[oldgraybeard]

Both points brought up seem valid, esp. since I am not a lawyer.

Suing the wrong people

[ocsibrm]

Especially since Amazon issued a recall. Of course I get the feeling that Amazon has a smidge more cash than American Paper Optics. I mean, just guessing, of course.

Re:Suing the wrong people

[TemporalBeing]

Especially since Amazon issued a recall. Of course I get the feeling that Amazon has a smidge more cash than American Paper Optics. I mean, just guessing, of course.

I doubt American Paper Optics (APO) would have any issue fighting it off as they were one of the few official glasses. APO even had information on their website on how to spot a counterfeit. They're probably pretty well covered.

If (as others have claimed) Amazon co-mingled vendor's products then it would be on Amazon.

If, however, a vendor co-mingled their own APO and non-APO products or didn't have proper products then that's on the vendor. Sadly, too many vendors sourced counterfeit APO products.

Now as to Amazon - they actually issued a recall on numerous vendors products - both direct communications to customers, canceling of orders, and massive announcements via numerous sources - all-in-all, highly likely they followed the laws and regulations on how to do a recall and are probably covered by that alone as they did everything they potentially could to notify people of the potential problems. When done right, issuing a recall does protect from liability - it's in the public interest to do so in order to encourage recalls to happen.

Proven false

[Tablizer]

Blindness? Bull! Trump stared directly at the sun without glasses and is perfectly nor.......oh, wait, nevermind.

Re:Proven false

[wisnoskij]

Trump stared at the sun, and the sun blinked.

Re:Proven false

[Bruce Perens]

Actually, the sun is nothing against the god-emperor's brilliance. It dims in his countenance.

Re:Proven false

[thegarbz]

Are you actually implying that Trump *only just* went blind?

Re:Proven false

[Tablizer]

Actually, the sun is nothing against the god-emperor's brilliance. It dims in his countenance.

Because it's doing a face-palm.

Counterfeit Goods And Commingling Inventory

[Anonymous Coward]

This highlights the issue of counterfeit goods being sold via Amazon. Many assume that ordering with Prime shipping and/or selecting goods labeled as Fulfilled by Amazon are safe, that may not be so due to commingling of inventory. Even items listed as sold by Amazon may potentially be commingled as well.

So one may assume they're obtaining an item from seller A when in reality the particular item shipped came from seller B. Hence, even if the product shown on the description page looks legit, it's often of little assurance given the way Amazon allegedly handles its inventory.

Saw a post, I think it was here on Slashdot, explaining how one can game this in their favor. Order a product from the lowest price Fulfilled by Amazon seller, even if they're sketchy. Then when the product arrives, examine it well and if fake, demand refund. Otherwise, if legit, keep and pocket the savings. Commingling, while increasing the odds of getting a counterfeit, can also work the other way too.

While Amazon likely can't be held legally liable for the fitness of the goods it sells, there's a case to be made regarding the known selling of counterfeit products. That's likely the angle the litigant is pursuing. Regardless, whether the case goes anywhere, hopefully it focuses more attention on Amazon inventory commingling and counterfeits.

Re:Counterfeit Goods And Commingling Inventory

[TemporalBeing]

That's likely the angle the litigant is pursuing. Regardless, whether the case goes anywhere, hopefully it focuses more attention on Amazon inventory commingling and counterfeits.

It would have to focus on that; however, as I point out in here Amazon is still likely protected.

Hard to blame amazon here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to blame amazon in this situation. Someone listed counterfit goods on their site, they discovered it BEFORE anyone was hurt, issued a recall and it was widely publicized to check your glasses. These people stared directly at the sun long enough to cause permanent damage, all the while IGNORING the SEARING PAIN their eyeballs would have felt. What more was Amazon supposed to do? The manufacturer should have some liability here, not the retailer.

Re: Hard to blame amazon here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your retinas don't have pain receptors. You won't feel pain when your retina is destroyed by invisible infrared light.

Re:Hard to blame amazon here...

[TemporalBeing]

I find it hard to blame amazon in this situation. Someone listed counterfit goods on their site, they discovered it BEFORE anyone was hurt, issued a recall and it was widely publicized to check your glasses. These people stared directly at the sun long enough to cause permanent damage, all the while IGNORING the SEARING PAIN their eyeballs would have felt. What more was Amazon supposed to do? The manufacturer should have some liability here, not the retailer.

While I agree that Amazon is likely protected (see here), the damage is done without any knowledge of it being done, with blindness/pain/etc coming hours to a few days after the fact.

List of approved eclipse glasses

[UnknownSoldier]

That KGW video is crap. **Which** brands are effected???

Here is a list of safe glasses:

https://eclipse.aas.org/resour...

* American Paper Optics (Eclipser) / EclipseGlasses.com / 3dglassesonline.com
* APM Telescopes (Sunfilter Glasses)*
* Baader Planetarium (AstroSolar Silver/Gold Film)* [see note 1]
* Celestron (EclipSmart Glasses & Viewers)
* DayStar (Solar Glasses)
* Explore Scientific (Solar Eclipse Sun Catcher Glasses)
* Halo Solar Eclipse Spectacles
* Jaxy Optical Instrument Co., Ltd.* [see note 2]
* Lunt Solar Systems (SUNsafe SUNglasses) [see their unique kid-size eclipse glasses]
* Meade Instruments (EclipseView Glasses & Viewers)
* Rainbow Symphony (Eclipse Shades)
* Seymour Solar (Helios Glasses)
* Solar Eclipse International / Cangnan County Qiwei Craft Co.*
* Thousand Oaks Optical (Silver-Black Polymer & SolarLite)
* TSE 17 / 110th.de (Solar Filter Foil)*

Note 1: Baader Planetarium's AstroSolar Safety Film and AstroSolar Photo Film, sold in the U.S. by Alpine Astronomical and Astro-Physics (see below), are not certified to meet the ISO 12312-2 international safety standard and are not designed to work as eclipse shades or handheld solar filters. Baader's AstroSolar Silver/Gold Film, on the other hand, does meet the ISO 12312-2 safety standard for filters for eyes-only direct viewing of the Sun.

Note 2: Jaxy doesn't sell direct to customers; they manufacture for other companies. Their solar viewers could be described as "too safe" â" they block a bit more visible light than the ISO 12312-2 standard allows, rendering a safe but rather dim view of the Sun. Technically, they aren't compliant with ISO 12312-2, but because they are safe, and because several trustworthy vendors are selling eclipse glasses made by Jaxy, we include them here.

Numerous other astronomy- and science-related enterprises and organizations sell eclipse glasses made by the companies listed above. If you buy from any of the following businesses, you know you are getting ISO-compliant safe solar viewers:

--
Man Cave, noun, a place where a man can to play with all his expensive toys. Also see Garage.

Re:List of approved eclipse glasses

[TemporalBeing]

So the issue is that there were a number of fakes that looked almost exactly like the real thing. Even looking at American Paper Optic's website (https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety) shows that it can be extremely hard to visually tell the difference.

Bloodsuckers...

[msauve]

Amazon recalled some glasses which they believed to be counterfeit. Amazon has also said that customers who did not receive an email purchased glasses that were safe to use. The plaintiffs did not receive an email. Reading the suit, it doesn't make any claim that counterfeit glasses were received, but rather that they got glasses made by American Paper Optics, a reputable vendor according to the American Astronomical Society.

Further, the plaintiffs claim eye damage, but offer no evidence, not even a claim to have seen an ophthalmologist.

I smell some bloodsucking lawyers and plaintiffs trying to scam a big payoff.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

May be the plaintiffs suffered eye damage, or may be not. May be they received the email, or may be not.

For some reason I do not receive Amazon emails related to my orders but have no problem at all to receive the rest of the emails Amazon send me or on behalf of sellers. About my orders, zip, zero, nada.

They argue that should have received the email but didn't. And definitely at some point will need to show proof of the eye damage.

In my case, even after contacting Amazon customer support *several* times and painfully following their script every time, no one has a clue or a way to escalate the issue to a postmaster that could debug the problem.

My ISP's MTA doesn't get these emails, so I've given up since seems that there is no way they are going to solve it.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer no evidence... to who?

Are you the fucking judge?

Re: Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I ordered a set of glasses that said it was made in the US. What I got was made in china. I asked for and got a refund.

I ordered another set that was advertised as American Paper Optics. This second time I received a different set of made in China glasses. No mention of the manufacturer. I asked for and got a refund.

I got one recall notice, I think for the second order.

It seems as though in addition to the shared stock problem, sellers are able to squat on each other's listing even when the items are not identical.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[jittles]

Amazon recalled some glasses which they believed to be counterfeit. Amazon has also said that customers who did not receive an email purchased glasses that were safe to use.

The instructions on the legitimate glasses I saw specifically said not to look at the sun for more than momentary glances, even with the glasses on. If they had legitimate eclipse glasses but failed to follow the instructions, they still could have easily cooked their eyes and it would not be anyone's fault but their own.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[argStyopa]

Exactly.
A reputable claim might be against the vendor that MADE the glasses, but Amazon has gigantic pockets....

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

well, they claim a "central blindspot" and since cephalopods don't have legal standing I think we can safely assume they were born with that

Re: Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Amazon has also said that customers who did not receive an email purchased glasses that were safe to use. The plaintiffs did not receive an email."

Oh, yeah, because not receiving an e-mail message always means no e-mail was sent, right?

Except for: unreliable networks, hosts, and applications; automatic spam filtering; kids; cats on the keyboard.

When I read what Amazon wrote in its press release, I immediately thought of numerous ways that people who should have received those e-mails, didn't. Amazon's methodology was a crap-shoot and they (Amazon) deserve to lose.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloodsucking yes, but someone's got to do it. Amazon definitely did sold counterfeit glasses, and reacted with one confusing email: too little, too late.

They need to be sued, or else they will continue without repercussion their widespread practice of allowing sellers to sell fake products on branded product pages. They should be vetting sellers before they already ship a million defective products (the problem was happening for over a month before Amazon finally took whatever little action they could)

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you had illegitimate glasses.

ISO 23123:2015 glasses are good for indefinite, direct viewing of the sun. They do not "age out". You may have received iso 23123:2008 glasses, which specify a 3 minute viewing period and expire after 3 years. But -:2015 glasses do not expire and have no time limit on solar viewing.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[0xdeadbeef]

The counterfeit glasses were claiming to be made by American Paper Optics, but were actually made in China. Despite sourcing from a third party, Amazon held them in their warehouses, processed payment for them, shipped them, and did not warn that they were counterfeit despite recognizing that they had been selling counterfeit glasses. The plaintiffs have a reasonably strong case.

I smell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Cederic]

If I was selling perfectly capable glasses with indefinite protection I'd probably put a "Do not stare at the sun" warning on the box anyway.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I seems to me that if it were an honest attempt to make things right, they should have included APO in the lawsuit.
APO might not be responsible if the glasses are counterfit, but if they were on the lawsuit, then that would be figured out really quick.
Instead, they just went after the deep pockets.

The suit offers no technical data to show that the glasses were defective or medical data to show that these folks were harmed. This makes it seem like an attempt to get in the front of the line for filing instead of an attempt to find out what actually happened.

The Amazon customer had no trouble dealing with Amazon over the Internet to get the glasses, he only had problems when the same mechanism was used to warn him that there might be a problem. I bet the terms of use for the site say that this is the expected method of notification.

Part of the lawsuit is that Amazon distributed the glasses. So did the customer when he took a 3 pack and gave a pair to his girlfriend.

Looking at the sun with anything should not be a casual exercise. There is some duty for the individual to look into what they are doing. No other rule set will actually work. On the other hand, misrepresentation of the facts which make this impossible would not be ok.

It's not clear to me what Amazon is. They might be a business which buys and sells goods. They might be a marketing organization which connects buyers with sellers. My experience is that they are a bit of both and which role they are taking depends on what you are buying. They are definitely a major market force in a new kind of market. To some extent, this lawsuit is about how this market should operate. If there is any good in the lawsuit, it would be there.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[TemporalBeing]

Amazon recalled some glasses which they believed to be counterfeit. Amazon has also said that customers who did not receive an email purchased glasses that were safe to use.

The instructions on the legitimate glasses I saw specifically said not to look at the sun for more than momentary glances, even with the glasses on. If they had legitimate eclipse glasses but failed to follow the instructions, they still could have easily cooked their eyes and it would not be anyone's fault but their own.

Funny thing is according to https://www.eclipseglasses.com... even a lot of the fakes had the same warning :P

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[TemporalBeing]

The counterfeit glasses were claiming to be made by American Paper Optics, but were actually made in China. Despite sourcing from a third party, Amazon held them in their warehouses, processed payment for them, shipped them, and did not warn that they were counterfeit despite recognizing that they had been selling counterfeit glasses. The plaintiffs have a reasonably strong case.

Not likely - see https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... for more details, but essentially given how big a deal was made over the recall, Amazon is likely protected. American Paper Optics, given their information at https://www.eclipseglasses.com... in addition to the warnings on the glasses themselves to not look for more than 3 minutes is also likely protected.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[0xdeadbeef]

They're not suing APO. Why would they? What part of counterfeit don't you understand?

I would call you stupid for not reading the article, but it seems confused as well. Amazon sourced glasses from third parties that claimed to be glasses made by APO, they were sold by Amazon in the listing as APO-made glasses, but they were actually counterfeits made in China with fraudulent branding. That's why APO had to make a page on their website telling people how to identify the counterfeits. And Amazon did not contact every customer who bought them to warn them.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[david_thornley]

There's no reason to think APO made or sold defective glasses. The claim is that Amazon sent defective glasses without proper notification.

For filing, the plaintiffs don't need to establish anything. Obviously, they'll have to back up their claims at some point, or the case will be thrown out.

When I deal with Amazon over the net, I use a web browser and get immediate feedback. An email isn't comparable. If this is Amazon's fault, Amazon bears the legal burden of notification, and the courts may find that email isn't enough. There's no guarantee an email will get through. If you need to inform someone legally, send certified mail with a return receipt through the Post Office. (I've found that that's often the best thing to start with, since some companies ignore regular mail, since they can complain in court that they didn't get it.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Cinnamon Beige]

Actually, recalls don't provide automatic or even complete protection--it's in the public interest to ensure that efforts are made to ensure that defective products don't hit the market at all & recalls are done in a timely manner. If you issue the recall after the problem's become known, and especially if you knew when you shipped out the product that it was dangerous? The recall is roughly a tiny bandaid on a sucking chest wound--at best.

With Amazon's known issues in sending you the products provided their warehouses by a specific vendor, the by-vendor recall done well after it became known that Amazon had counterfeit eclipse glasses might not really be enough to protect them from liability--especially since it may well be determined in court that the problem only existed because Amazon failed at due diligence.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[TemporalBeing]

They're not suing APO. Why would they? What part of counterfeit don't you understand?

I would call you stupid for not reading the article, but it seems confused as well. Amazon sourced glasses from third parties that claimed to be glasses made by APO, they were sold by Amazon in the listing as APO-made glasses, but they were actually counterfeits made in China with fraudulent branding. That's why APO had to make a page on their website telling people how to identify the counterfeits. And Amazon did not contact every customer who bought them to warn them.

Never said they were suing APO. Just stated that APO is likely protected; their lawyers probably said there was no point in suing APO b/c the bar was too high. Amazon, however, is likely protected but their lawyers probably said there's a possibility they could break the protection.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[TemporalBeing]

I would gander that the level of protection is determined by (a) was anyone hurt before the recall was issued and (b) was there sufficient attempts to give notice before injury occurred. In this case, the injuries did not occur until well after the recall was underway, and were very widely published. Can everyone be notified? No, that's an impossibility; which is why it's typically looked at as did they make every possible attempt to contact effected people. The courts use similar kinds of methods for other things (subpoena's, etc) before entering judgment against someone.

Now, does that mean protection is guaranteed? No; you can still break through the protection under various conditions (negligence being one). Thus my language that Amazon is "likely" protected because the plaintiff would have to prove that (a) there wasn't sufficient attempts to communicate the recall, and (b) that co-mingling of products occurred such that people that should not have been effected were, which thus led to the injury of the plaintiff. Point 'a' will not likely be possible to prove; so they'll have to rely on point 'b' which is going to be very difficult to prove.

Point 'b' can even fail if during the proceedings the received product was tested and found to be a non-counterfeit product (the real thing) but either (i) faulty or (ii) misused. If 'i' then the manufacturer is at fault; if 'ii' then the plaintiff is at fault. So you can probably expect the manufacturer may get pulled into the lawsuit in some form in order to prove whether or not the received product is fake or not.

Re:Bloodsuckers...

[Cinnamon Beige]

Apparently the plantiffs were not sent a recall notice and Amazon had insisted that anybody who didn't get one had an authentic pair. Your Point A doesn't apply, and odds are that the plantiff's lawyers already know if the pair of glasses were counterfeit, defective, or misused. Failure to check those things before filing a suit can cost a lawyer their license.

Also, you're completely ignoring my point that the court may decide that Amazon fucked up beyond what a recall can cover: Amazon was known at least a month before it issued the recall as having many many counterfeits to the point that it wasn't worth trying to get a pair of good eclipse glasses from them. If you know, or should have known if you've two brain cells in communication, that you've got defective products going out the warehouse--the degree of protection you can expect to get from a recall is proportional to the speed with which you issue it once you ought to have been aware of the problem, assuming you made an actual effort to detect/prevent the problem quickly & the recall is sufficiently broad. (This second one is why recalls tend to be pretty broad--and yes, it's a bad sign for the company responsible for the recall when it has to be broadened anyway.)

Pretty much nobody in industries where this is a significant liability risk have gone with the Amazon's combination of "LOL what's quality control???" and laziness in issuing a recall once the problem became public knowledge.

None of this liability risk would exist if Amazon had asked for the paperwork from vendors that it did when the recall finally happened back before they would let them sell eclipse glasses, or made a point of not co-mingling products, or recalled all of the styles that they knew had counterfeits mixed in regardless of the vendor precisely because they could not be bothered to track the actual source for any given specific pair. Odds are that their legal department is trying its best to get this fact through the pointy-haired skulls of upper management. (If they can track it back to a specific vendor, they can throw that person under the bus, especially if they can show that they made an effort, no matter how lazy, to prevent counterfeits.)

Gla$$e$ are for Pu$$ie$!

[nuckfuts]

Joey Bada$$ proved it!

Re:Gla$$e$ are for Pu$$ie$!

[Anonymous Coward]

Welp, that's why Darwin invented the Darwin Awards.

Re:Gla$$e$ are for Pu$$ie$!

[ebvwfbw]

They're great. I expect some antifa entries soon.

Tell me really, who didn't see this one coming?

[Joviex]

From a mile off, using their super awesome powers of the obvious sunglasses, as seen on Amazont.com

Re:Tell me really, who didn't see this one coming?

[Anonymous Coward]

From a mile off, using their super awesome powers of the obvious sunglasses, as seen on Amazont.com

The plaintiff's if they're to be believed.

obligatory simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Re:obligatory simpsons

[DontBeAMoran]

Thank you

(CORRECTION) Re:What's the liabilitylaw for

[Anonymous Coward]

> The defective product may not be fake.

CORRECTION: I meaned to write "The defective product may be fake."

Re:Going to sue creimer

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound bitter, honey bunny

This is why I didn't bother.

[Gravis Zero]

Most of your brain is dedicated toward processing information from your eyes. Why would you risk it even if they tell you that it is safe?

Re:This is why I didn't bother.

[DontBeAMoran]

There's plenty of videos online available after the event, too.

"Oh, I've seen it in person!" they will say.

Yeah and they wasted time, energy and money and risked their eyes for a freakin' shadow.

Re:This is why I didn't bother.

[msauve]

Unlike you, some people prefer not to walk around with their eyes closed.

Sue the post office too

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he should sue the post office too since they delivered the bad eyeglasses.

Sure amazon's reputation is based on their promises of satisfaction and hence management of their vendor collection. But there's lots of things they can't control. The other day I bought a battery pack with a a USB port that puts out no 5 volts but 8.4 volts and uses unprotected high current Lithium polymer batteries. Just think of the fire that would have cause if I'd plugged it into my consumer electronics. But I don't think amazon is responsible. Or at least I won't if they soon pull that vendor down. If they leave it up now that they know this then perhaps they are responsible for the next fire they cause.

Well.. Darwin does have awards.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4830920/Californians-sunscreen-eyes-watch-eclipse.html

TYIHAW, DFTTYW.

[Hognoxious]

You'd think Amazon of all companies could have kept a close eye on their supply chain for these things

I see what you did there.

Unlike the plaintiffs.

It's about wavelength, not brightness

[dfm3]

It's not brightness that's a factor, but the fact that wavelengths of light in the UV spectrum cause damage to cells. The amount of UV radiation given off by the sun is greater than what one would be exposed to while welding, even if the intensity of light in the visible range is greater.

So, the issue with cheap eclipse glasses is that they block most of the visible spectrum, but don't block an appropriate amount of UV, so those wavelengths travel right past your dilated pupils and strike the retina while you stare. Think of what happens when you get a sunburn - UV radiation damages cells in your skin - and imagine the same thing happening to the inside of your eyes.

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[Jim Narem]

It's not brightness but spectral irradiance that matters. You need to compare the spectral irradiance curves for the sun at the earth's surface and that of a welding process that a welding
filter is designed to block. Only public ref I can find is this which shows some significant UV radiation around 250nm greater than 0.5 W*(1/m^2)*(1/nm). The earth's atmosphere cuts out most of the hard UV, especially at sea level and times away from high noon.

So, in fact, welding radiation is more dangerous than the sun since the earth protects us.

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[piojo]

Are you sure it's not IR that's the problem? The evidence for this is large. UV is easy to block--you don't even need darkened glass to protect against a welding spark--auto-darkening welding masks offer this protection even when the batteries are dead. Welding sparks generate a similar amount of UV to sunlight--both given sunburns. And welding masks don't block as much IR as glasses for looking at the sun, since sunlight gives off more IR than a welding spark (as evidenced by the lack of immediate full-body warming when you strike the arc). The final evidence for my claim is that eclipse glasses and IR-blocking glasses alike are usually mirrored with a layer of metal, and welding masks are not. Metal blocks or reflects almost all IR. Welding goggles are mirrored, since they're less dark, and are intended for lower-temperature flame welding, which produces much more IR than bright light.

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[Man On Pink Corner]

Wouldn't your eyes be exposed to even more IR if you just stared into a fire or a space heater? Heat is heat, right?

Or is the issue far-IR radiation that doesn't come from any other commonly encountered black-body radiator besides the sun?

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[piojo]

After some digging, I'm not sure. You do bring up a very good point, but I'm unable to answer whether far IR is the concern. I found this graph that shows the sun's spectral emissions in absolute radiance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But I couldn't find a similar graph for other heat/light sources, since the ones I've found list relative radiance, which will show far IR as much larger than it actually is.

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[piojo]

But yeah, far IR is the only potential problem, since near IR hits water and turns into heat. It doesn't penetrate far enough into flesh to reach your retina.

Re: It's about wavelength, not brightness

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The retinal phototoxicity of solar UV is low.

The issue is visible wavelength irradiance as phototoxicity of solar IR is also low.

This is why the salient parameter in ISO 12312-2 is total luminosity (maximum 0.003%) with a requirement for UV filtering to the same level. As IR toxicity is minimal the IR transmission is permitted to be 3%.

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[Khyber]

"The amount of UV radiation given off by the sun is greater than what one would be exposed to while welding"

Yea, tell that to my welder's tan. I can be burned with 30 minutes of work on a welder, I won't even be burned after 6 hours mining in the desert.

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[Gilgaron]

I'm not very experienced in blacksmithing, but when reading up on safety I recall one reason to wear the welding glasses explicitly designed for IR is to protect your retinas from the black body IR, which can cause damage even when the metal cools such that it isn't glowing anymore. Apparently cataracts were a long term occupational hazard for historical smiths. I don't know about the physics for which wavelengths come out of that sort of thing versus a camp fire, but part of the danger was certainly that if the glasses are dark enough to make your iris open but not protective enough for the IR you'd get more damage than looking into a bright flame naked.

Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness

[Reziac]

Someone gift me a pair of Blublocker sunglasses (real ones, not knockoffs), the kind with yellowish lenses that are supposed to block UV. And they seemed to do that (I can see some UV, so I notice). BUT after a few hours in sunlight, they made my eyes sore, and it felt like a heat-burn, not like normal sunburn, as if my eyes were getting proportionally more IR.

That was the end of wearing 'em in sunlight, tho they worked fairly well for improved contrast in rain or fog.

If they win

[ayesnymous]

Where will they spend their money? Their Amazon accounts will be banned.

I bought them

[Bruce Perens]

I bought some of the problem glasses on Amazon. They were very dense gas welding goggles, where what was actually needed would have been a plate from an arc welding mask. Arc welding has a much greatter ultraviolet component. At the time I purchsed them, months before the eclipse, they appeared to be the best things available, and I wanted to stay away from the plastic film glasses if possible. I spent about $150 for three.

Only a day or two before I left on a trip that was to lead to viewing the eclipse in Prairie City, Oregon. Amazon wrote me, asking me not to use the glasses, refunding my purchase, and stating that it would not be necessary to send them back. They are still OK as gas welding glasses, I suspect.

We ended up using the film glasses, and various observing devices with filters or projectors. I made a really nifty solar projector out of a telescope I got from a flea market, which the crowd appreciated. It's a lot easier to see the sunspots when the sun is projected a foot wide.

I viewed the total eclipse using unfiltered Orion 70x15 binoculars on a pantograph mount. I saw everything. The planet mercury, solar prominences, etc. I definitely recommend binoculars.

Re:I bought them

[dgatwood]

I viewed the total eclipse using unfiltered Orion 70x15 binoculars on a pantograph mount. I saw everything. The planet mercury, solar prominences, etc. I definitely recommend binoculars.

Just be sure to stop looking through them well in advance of totality ending. Otherwise, with the magnification, it'll likely burn a hole right through the back of your head. :-D

But seriously, I ended up with some hard plastic lenses that got recalled, but in spite of that, they were plenty dark enough—way darker than the arc welding mask that I seem to recall using at the annular eclipse thirty-ish years ago (which was still dark enough to do the job).

Re: I bought them

[Bruce Perens]

You can't see ultraviolet, and you would have a hard time verifying that the attenuation extends through short UV.

Re:I bought them

[istartedi]

Yay for Prairie City! I could have bumped into you and not even known it. We showed up there with no glasses of any kind. We were just going to enjoy the shadows and use projection until totality. I had looked all around my home town, and somebody told me the only place that might have them was 100 miles away.

So on Sunday we were walking around Prairie City and they still had the cardboard glasses for sale at the community center for $2/each. Imagine that! They had the ISO number on them, made in the USA so I felt pretty good about it.

Re:I bought them

[Bruce Perens]

Prairie City was pretty nice, yes. I think Grant County distributed glasses to merchants. Stores were giving them away on Tuesday and they didn't seem to mind.

The only thing they didn't have was bulk water for campers. They did tell me about the plumbed natural spring 15 miles away, and I did go by there on the way to the steam train in Sumpter, so I was able to fill up 24 gallons of water.

caused a central blind spot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Were the glasses purchased by a pair of cephalopods?

Amazon are untouchable

[rsborg]

Lately almost everything sold on amazon is sold by third party and amazon just does warehouse, shipping and billing. a lot of stuff is shipped by the third party as well.

they try to play the game like a common carrier but it won't last for long

Why do you say it won't last long? It's lasted years. You can't buy a real Apple charger on Amazon, 95% of that is fake even though the product description says "made by Apple".

I mean, Apple is the most highly valued company in the world and if they can't take Amazon to task who will?

Bezos controls a newspaper (WaPo). You think the "independent press" is going to fuck with him?

Seriously expect even more of the fake stuff. There's probably stuff you've bought from Amazon that's fake and you don't know it.

Re:Amazon are untouchable

[Luthair]

I mean, Apple is the most highly valued company in the world and if they can't take Amazon to task who will?

Consumers - eventually Amazon will expend the trust in its brand and people won't purchase there.

Unfortunately it seems every store is chasing the cash and following this model e.g. Newegg, Bestbuy, Walmart

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My Glasses Were Fake

[shambalagoon]

A family-member bought eclipse glasses for the extended family on Amazon. She bought it from this 100% legit listing: https://www.amazon.com/Soluna-.... When we started seeing the news stories about fake eclipse glasses, we went back to the site and checked the listing, which said they were CE and ISO certified for eclipse viewing. The glasses had the ISO certification printed on them as well.

So we went and viewed the eclipse. I probably only looked at the sun through the glasses 30-60 seconds total, but my kids may have spend longer looking. The next day, I noticed that my vision was blurrier. Since there are several things that historically can impact my vision, I decided to see if it improved in a few days. When it didn't, I double-checked the glasses. That's when I saw the reviews and Q&A on the listing talking about the fakes, and sure enough, the ones we received were fakes from China. We did not receive any email from Amazon

Comparing them to a real certified pair, the fakes let through more light, though not enough to cause me to squint. The fakes don't have that metallic sheen the real ones do, and I wonder if that's the infrared/UV shielding. I went to the eye doctor and they found no signs of solar retinopathy, though admitting that the signs can take a few weeks to show up. I think my kids are too little to accurately report slight vision changes, but the other 2 people who used the fakes didn't seem to have any issues.

What is interesting here in terms of the lawsuit is that on Amazon, even if you are reading details about a legitimate product and looking at a picture of the real product, there's no telling if what you're going to get in the mail is actually that product. In fact, unless you're looking for it, you rarely even know what seller is being automatically chosen when you add something to your cart.

Re:My Glasses Were Fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing them to a real certified pair, the fakes let through more light, though not enough to cause me to squint. The fakes don't have that metallic sheen the real ones do, and I wonder if that's the infrared/UV shielding.

There are real ones without metallic sheen. The only way to differentiate good fakes vs the different filters out there is measuring the spectrum they let through. You can't do that with your own eyes. A metallic sheen is no guarantee for anything. There is more than the visible spectrum.

Re:My Glasses Were Fake

[ebvwfbw]

I used an arc welding helmet. I've always used one through they years to observe the sun. No problems. Sometimes if it's real bright, use another uv based sunglasses in addition to the arc welding helmet. No blurriness, no after image, no problems. I have to be careful too. I had cataracts. Heredity. Both eyes. I can see UV light now.

Kill them dead

[hackel]

I hope Amazon's legal team absolutely crushes these disgusting people, and bankrupts them of everything they own. I could understand suing the manufacturer and the seller for false claims. That is legitimate. But acting like Amazon should personally inspect and certify every single product sold on its platform is absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, Amazon already goes above and beyond what should be their legal requirements in this area, constantly siding with consumers over sellers, and booting out people who ship more than 1% of defective products, even if it was an accident.

There aren't many instances in which you should side with a giant corporation, but this is certainly one of them!

Re:Kill them dead

[david_thornley]

Amazon advertised the glasses as good, and sent bad glasses. That's a false claim. Amazon doesn't have to verify everything, but they have to make sure that what they ship is what they claimed to ship, and instead of genuine APO glasses they sent counterfeits. Had they sent the APO glasses they were supposed to, the liability would be with APO.

Re:Kill them dead

[Cinnamon Beige]

I'd agree with you, if Amazon had done a better job here--because they aren't careful to prevent comingling of vendors' stock from happening and didn't go with a strict "Must prove authenticity/quality/suitability to even be listed" policy which would have mitigated problems the problems that would be caused by comingling? Yeah, this isn't okay, and this is a place where they need to have been tighter and will have to be tighter if they're wanting to sell industrial and scientific equipment. It also raises some unfortunate questions on just how well they really can verify that somebody is shipping more than 1% of defective products--that's the sort of thing that requires you have your inventory set up to keep track of who sent what, and if you can keep track of that, then you should be 100% capable of making sure that if I order something from a specific vendor I get that thing from that vendor.

How is this amazon's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean they sold stuff they didnt build it.. why are they suing the seller and not the builder?
Those that made these glasses told people we know what we are doing.
Amazon just bought those and sold them back, they never told anyone they had knowledge about solar eclipse.
Those that made the glasses must have told somewhere they had the knowledge to build these thing to protect.
How come those that build sub-standard stuff dont get sued?