Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Amazon Isn't Liable For Damages Caused By a Hoverboard It Sold (cnbc.com)
Earlier this week, a judge in Tennessee ruled that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard that spontaneously exploded and burned down a family's house, even though they bought it on Amazon's website. "The plaintiff claimed that Amazon didn't properly warn her about the dangers they knew existed with the product, but the judge didn't agree," reports CNBC. At the time, hoverboards were all the rage; Amazon sold almost 250,000 of them over a 30-day period. The plaintiff claims the company had an obligation to warn customers properly about the dangers it knew existed. "[The plaintiff] bought the hoverboard on Amazon, the receipt came from Amazon, the box had an Amazon label and all the money was in Amazon's hands," adds CNBC. "[The plaintiff] has been unable to find the Chinese manufacturer of the device." From the report: It's the latest legal victory for Amazon, which has for years fended off litigation related to product quality and safety by arguing that, for a big and growing part of its business, it's just a marketplace. There are buyers on one end and sellers on the other -- the argument goes -- and Amazon connects them through a popular portal, facilitating the transaction with a sophisticated logistics system. The courts are reinforcing the power of Amazon's business model as the ultimate middleman. But for American consumers, there's growing cause for concern. [...] But if Amazon isn't liable when faulty products sold through its website cause personal injuries and property damage, customers are often left with no recourse. That's because it's frequently impossible for consumers to figure out who manufactured the defective product and hold that party responsible.
"[The plaintiff] has been unable to find the Chinese manufacturer of the device."
If Amazon can't put the buyer in contact with the company which produced the device, then they should be liable. They sold it, they should be responsible for it. Frankly, even if they can put the person in contact, they should still be responsible, and recovering damages from the supplier should be their problem.
We have consumer protection laws for a reason, and that reason is that not having them costs everyone money. This decision simply lets Amazon push the cost of doing business off onto the court system, which means We The People have to pay for their cost of doing business.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I do not think the issue is Amazon in this case: it is Chinese sellers and customer protection in a globalized world in general.
I had once bought a game key on Ebay and the Chinese seller refused to send it to me without me sending him a copy of my ID for age verification. Understandably, the last thing I want to do is sending some guy in China is the information on my ID. I asked for a refund and the seller refused, copy-pasting the same message about how I should give him a good review first. I contacted Ebay, then PayPal, none of whom wanted to help me with my issue despite the seller being marked with all of Ebay’s trusted symbols. The very young-sounding customer support person actually said that I “have the reigns in my hands and should threaten the seller with bad reviews until he refunds me”. I then reported the seller for “review extortion”, which is an offense under Ebay’s own terms of conduct, Ebay confirmed that review extortion had taken place and refused to help me with my refund.
At this point, I gave the Chinese bastard a snarky yet positively-marked review and he returned my money. I am confident that there is a library worth of similar stories that never made it into the court room due to being less high-profile. All of these companies are utter trash when it comes to third party seller customer protection.
No one is responsible for anything, at any time, anywhere. No rules, no regulations, anything goes. You all remember voting for this, right?
I'm fairly certain that #1 is already in place, and my guess is that #2 is being contested by Amazon, that Amazon is claiming something to the effect that they're more like a postal service than a store. If I have that right, then I wholeheartedly side against Amazon in this case; whether or not they're "like" a store or a delivery service in a traditional sense, they're a new kind of entity and we need tech laws to keep up with new tech entities. I don't think Amazon should be required to do consumer device testing, but IF there is an available database (from a regulatory entity) documenting harm, Amazon absolutely should be required to present that information at the point of sale.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
We have consumer protection laws for a reason, and that reason is that not having them costs everyone money. This decision simply lets Amazon push the cost of doing business off onto the court system, which means We The People have to pay for their cost of doing business.
So your entire underlying assumption is society is responsible for protecting someone who gets on the internet to find the cheapest piece of Chinesium crap from some seller engaged in Alibabatrage?
Ummm, WHY?!?!?!
I'm not sure I can explain it in smaller words than I did above. When people get hurt because they are dumb and do dumb things, it costs us all money, and it actually turns out to be cheaper for all of us to protect them from doing extremely dumb things. When someone burns their house down, it might burn your house down. They might have to move and consequently not do their job, which has downstream ripple effects that also cost other people money.
Also, keep in mind that people don't even have to be dumb, just uneducated. In part because we have these consumer protection laws, people have gotten used to the idea that stuff they buy from major retailers won't burn their house down. Between the circuit overload protection devices in their homes which are legally mandated, and the usual legally mandated consumer protections that we have come to enjoy here in the supposedly greatest nation in the world, this is usually a safe assumption.
Does this mean that people are getting used to taking less responsibility for themselves in certain areas? Yes, it does. But no one can reasonably be expected to be educated in all areas. The world is simply too complex for that. Given that, isn't it valid to offer people some basic protection? Is there actually some public interest in permitting companies to sell batteries which are best marketed as incendiary devices as if it were a good idea to bring them into your homes? In my book, that's a form of fraud. These devices were utterly unfit for their stated purpose, and constituted a significant public hazard.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
California? You must be joking. Amazon is simply not the responsible party here. The merchant has never been the responsible party. They shouldn't be. They didn't make the product.
All this kind of nonsense will do is destroy the ability to do business. That will only drive away people that can feed money into your economy and prevent your cities from going bankrupt.
What ever happened to whining about bottom feeding lawyers attacking whatever "deep pocket" they happen to come across?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
To be fair, nobody should be purchasing Chrysler or Dodge anyway. How many times do they have to be listed as the least reliable cars for people to care?
Approximately nobody wants to be a scooter that will burn their house down. Especially nobody wants their next door neighbor to buy one that ends up burning down your house too.
That's an entirely different thing from products that simply aren't well made, cheap Chinese products that break after a month of use. Sometimes I DO want a cheap product that I only need for a couple of uses. Market forces can more or less work for overall quality, though of course no system is perfect.
Consider also the difference between these:
1. You may not sell cheap stuff made in China.
2. If you sell dangerously defective things, you're responsible for injuries and damages your products cause.
There is a difference between the government deciding what you can and can't do vs the common-sense principle that you are responsible for the results of your actions.
Here buyers are suing in civil court to recover damages caused by Amazon selling dangerously defective goods. This isn't a criminal charge, the government putting people in jail for not doing what they are told. This is a private, consensual transaction - Amazon listed scooters for sale, the consumer paid Amazon for a fun scooter. Amazon instead delivered a fire bomb. The consumer asks that Amazon compensate them for the damage caused by the item Amazon sent them.
All this kind of nonsense will do is destroy the ability to do business.
Ah the old "Europe does not exist" argument. They are responsible in Europe and they are profitable enough to continue to do business there.
SJW n. One who posts facts.