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.

21 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. IOT protest march by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Corporations, robots, and pets are legally people! We all have rights!
        -R2D2

  2. Who Cares by QuadEddie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Laws won't stop this. How the hell are the cops going to even know how to charge someone doing this? Why don't the companies just make their own internal bots that buy out their own inventories and then resale them as independent scalpers? (The marketing dicks call this a new 'channel')

    1. Re:Who Cares by lactose99 · · Score: 2

      I suspect enforcement would be up to the FTC, who do know how to prosecute stuff like this.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    2. Re:Who Cares by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      FBI more likely as this will likely have to do with tracking shipping orders and money. You can easily track merchandise itself since the shoes and whatnot has to go to a physical address. And this kind of a load would have to go somewhere with commercial warehousing, which is also paid for, as volumes would be fairly large.

      With that many traces, catching the initial wave of people doing this would be easy, and added costs of having to obfuscate so many layers of your operations while still risking all your merchandise getting confiscated would likely drive profit margins down quick enough to actually act as a viable deterrent.

    3. Re:Who Cares by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Why should our tax dollars be spent on this?

      If vendors don't want to sell to bots, they can use CAPTCHAs, detect systematic mouse movement, limit quantities per order, limit quantities to the same shipping address, require each cabbage patch doll to be ordered along with $75 of other products, feed the items into inventory one-by-one with a randomized poisson distribution, or ... just charge the market price.

      If they don't do these things, then why should the taxpayers subsidize their broken business model?

  3. How is this any different from HFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Liquidity!

    1. Re:How is this any different from HFT by PraiseBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thats the first thing that popped in my head too. The same exact process is used to justify high frequency trading bots as being a necessary part of stock exchanges. Will this bill outlaw HFT?

      Or is the government proposing that middle class consumers are entitled to protections when buying toys and shoes, but are NOT allowed the same protections if they want to buy financial assets?

    2. Re:How is this any different from HFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Will this bill outlaw HFT?

      Some types of HFT are illegal some are not. Some types of HFT are bad for the markets some are good. If someone prices something too low, what is wrong with someone buying it and selling it for closer to the correct price?

      Or is the government proposing

      The Government (TM) isn't proposing anything. Some lawmakers are. And they're doing it for publicity. This isn't going to become law.

  4. Why do you need things so badly? by vlad30 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. This shouldn't be illegal... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This shouldn't be illegal... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      If you let your kids have all the new shiny, they will turn into adults with a need for new shiny.

      Best they get over it ASAP.

      Socially required? No such thing. You don't want them hanging with the morons anyhow.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:This shouldn't be illegal... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ten year olds _don't_ get everything they want. The ones that do, turn into incredibly shitty, useless, adults.

      Ten is not too young to make them decide which thing they want more, than make them save up their pennies to buy it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:This shouldn't be illegal... by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      That same logic could be used to insist on buying kids brand-name fashions. Sorry, no - my kids get their choice of sneakers from Marshalls, TJ Maxx, Target, etc. Wrong lesson, getting them whatever is hot. Give 'em a fidget spinner this year just to show them how fucking worthless "hot" is.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:This shouldn't be illegal... by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      Having raised a kid to successful maturity, I can tell you it doesn't work that way. The kid doesn't become a pariah unless you let them run around with dipshits, in which case, it's good that they're now pariahs to those types.

      There *IS NO* socially required thing. Don't let your kid get brainwashed into thinking there is. Side benefit? You wind up with an adult child with whom you can carry on an intelligent relationship instead of dealing with incessant moaning complaints.

  6. Re:This is swimming ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    And the reference to middle class is vacuous.

    But it buys votes.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Word of the day: Arbitrage by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Word of the day: Arbitrage by HornWumpus · · Score: 3

      Tired and stupid argument.

      Free ENOUGH markets exist, get over it. Repeating that nonsense isn't going to make it true.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. "the hottest gifts of the season" by swell · · Score: 2

    Are we talking about the cravings of the mindless masses? The latest marketing manipulation? The fashionable fad fantastic?

    Those who are so easily swayed are fodder for the market. They are the devolved. Let them quickly go into debt and fade from this earth. Let them leave the gene pool. Bah humbug, xmas shoppers!

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  9. Re:What are they going to do? by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

    Derezz them?

    End of line.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  10. There's actually already a solution to this by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Apply to Ticket Sales by djinn6 · · Score: 2

    If the event organizers cared at all, they also completely solve the problem with a simple auction.

    Let's say there's 5000 seats. Everyone put in the highest bid they're willing to pay, then the top 5000 bids get tickets at the lowest accepted bid price. If someone is willing to pay $500 for it, then they just bid $500. Maybe they'll only end up paying $50, but they can have certainty that they will not only get the ticket, but also at the best possible price.