Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Introduce Bill To Stop Bots From Ruining Holiday Shopping (cnet.com)
Democrats have proposed the "Stopping Grinch Bots Act" to make it illegal to use bots to shop online and also outlaw reselling items purchased by bots. "Lawmakers label them 'Grinch' bots because, during the holiday season, resellers use them to buy inventory of highly coveted toys that can be resold at highly inflated prices," reports CNET. "Often times, these bots are so quick that they can purchase entire stocks of items before people can even add them to their carts." From the report: Sens. Tom Udall, Richard Blumenthal and Chuck Schumer along with Rep. Paul Tonko made the announcement on Black Friday. While the proposed legislation is focused around the holiday season and toys, the Grinch Bots act would apply to all retailers online. Toys aren't the only items that resellers online send swarms of bots to. Security researchers noted that bots designed to buy rare sneakers are a persistent issue, as developers will create AI to buy shoes from companies like Nike and Adidas as quickly as possible. The proposed bill leaves it open for security researchers to use bots on retailer websites to find vulnerabilities. "Middle class folks save up -- a little here, a little there -- working to afford the hottest gifts of the season for their kids but ever-changing technology and its challenges are making that very difficult. It's time we help restore an even playing field by blocking the bots," said Schumer, a Democrat from New York, in a statement.
Liquidity!
First teach your kids that most of these toys are fads. you don't need to see that concert at $500 plus per ticket. and you certainly can wait for that "must have" latest fad, chances are if you wait a week or two your desire will change and eventually you will train yourself not to rush at things. Then these people who run the bots will only have the extremely stupid to make a profit from who will eventually run out of money.
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Advertising toys that will be out-of-fashion in a month, cost $250, and cost $2.50 to make in China to kids should be illegal. Actually, many European countries and Canadian provinces actually DO prohibit ads targeted at children under 12.
Don't want to be taken advantage of by the secondary market? Don't buy your kids the latest faddy junk; teach then some discipline. Plenty of fun toys that aren't the latest lemming frenzy.
Instead of going after the bots that solve shortages, why aren't the lawmakers going after sellers who cause them by selling below market equilibrium?
Oh I know. It's because this is feel-good legislation designed to help those congressmen get re-elected by people who don't understand supply & demand (i.e. most people).
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Instead of simply cutting the price, you keep the price the same and add a rebate. The rebate is limited to one per household (or however many the manufacturer thinks a single household would really need), and the item must be purchased from a list of stores that normally carry the product. Rebates neatly prevent resellers unaffiliated with the manufacturer (i.e.eBayers) from taking advantage of arbitrage to eat up the discounts themselves.
Problem is the final buyers hate it. They don't see it when resellers have marked up a price (or not passed on a discount they received) - they just assume that's the normal price. So instead all they do is complain endlessly about how rebates are evil and they hate having to spend 5 minutes to make $10 (which works out to the equivalent of $120/hr), and why can't they just cut the price instead? Well if they did that, some reseller would buy up all the stock and you wouldn't have been able to buy the item in the first place.
Yes there were problems with rebates being denied. But the manufacturers hate that as much as the people submitting the rebates. The manufacturers would contract with a rebate processing company to handle the rebates, and pay them a lump sum sufficient to pay for the rebates plus some. Anything left over after the rebates were paid off, the rebate company got to keep. So some of them set about denying as many rebates as possible. Since it's the manufacturer which takes the reputation hit from this, not the rebate processing company, the manufacturers don't like it. Most of them have begun using the better rebate processors. I haven't had one denied in 5 years.