Slashdot Mirror


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.

30 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Stupidity by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Stupidity by cdsparrow · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Stupidity by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Stupidity by sexconker · · Score: 2

      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).

    4. Re:Stupidity by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Stupidity by ayesnymous · · Score: 5, Informative
      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...

  2. Aren't they an ops company? by Chrontius · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:Aren't they an ops company? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    2. Re: Aren't they an ops company? by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. To be fair... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:To be fair... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    2. Re:To be fair... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      When you feel pain, stop looking at the sun.

  4. What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall? by Nutria · · Score: 2

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

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:What's the liabilitylaw for after a recall? by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  5. Re:This is stupid. by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. I suspect a scam by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I suspect a scam by EkriirkE · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    2. Re:I suspect a scam by Solandri · · Score: 2

      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).

  7. Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets! by oldgraybeard · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!!!

    1. Re:Suing Amazon because of their Deep Pockets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  8. Proven false by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Proven false by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  9. Re:This is stupid. by tomhath · · Score: 2

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

  10. Re:Partial Solar eclipse frankly boring... by chihowa · · Score: 4, Informative

    The shadows through the leaves are pretty damn cool.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  11. Bloodsuckers... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Bloodsuckers... by jittles · · Score: 2

      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.

  12. Gla$$e$ are for Pu$$ie$! by nuckfuts · · Score: 2

    Joey Bada$$ proved it!

  13. It's about wavelength, not brightness by dfm3 · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:It's about wavelength, not brightness by Jim+Narem · · Score: 2

      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.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion