Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Dash Buttons Ruled Illegal In Germany (gizmodo.com)

Amazon Dash buttons have been ruled illegal in Germany for making it too easy to buy Amazon products. Germany consumer advocacy group, Verbraucherzentrale NRW, "complained that Amazon's terms enable the company to switch out an ordered product with something else, and the buttons break laws protecting shoppers from buying things they are not fully informed about," reports Gizmodo. From the report: At first the wifi-connected buttons enabled users to quickly buy basic home goods and groceries -- like detergent, paper towels, macaroni and cheese, and bottled water. But Amazon has since added dozens more, from Slim Jims to Red Bull to Calvin Kline underwear. "We are always open to innovation. But if innovation means that the consumer is put at a disadvantage and price comparisons are made difficult then we fight that," Wolfgang Schuldzinski, leader of Verbraucherzentrale NRW, said to in a public statement.

The Munich court has sided with the organization, and ruled that the Dash buttons break consumer protection rules. The Verbraucherzentrale NRW statement suggests Amazon can't appeal the decision. But an Amazon spokesperson told Gizmodo that the company believes the button and its app don't violate German law, and Amazon is going to appeal. "The decision is not only against innovation, it also prevents customers from making an informed choice for themselves about whether a service like Dash Button is a convenient way for them to shop," the spokesperson said.

72 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Those laws are in place for a reason by ffkom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The authors formulation suggests that he thinks Amazon's dash was just "making it easy" for people to buy stuff. The same could be said about the noble gambling industry, which also only makes it as easy as possible for people to give away their money. And yet, regulations regarding such "offers" exist in most parts of the world.

    1. Re:Those laws are in place for a reason by AndyKron · · Score: 1

      This again? You need your paste privileges taken away.

  2. Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are they unable to create their own popular online shop?

    For that matter, the entire EU seems to be lacking a proper Amazon competitor. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is the case. There are some bright minds posting on Slashdot - does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

    1. Re: Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, look up a thing called works council. Germany and France are the harshest about this, and it mandates ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy to make a minor change in any work process.

    2. Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why are they unable to create their own popular online shop?

      For that matter, the entire EU seems to be lacking a proper Amazon competitor. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is the case. There are some bright minds posting on Slashdot - does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

      Amazon have multiple branches in Europe made of up entire European companies they bought out for competing against them. Being headquatered and registered in Europe, what makes you thing Amazon Europe is in anyway American?

    3. Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by ffkom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, with 2.7E+9 Euro revenue per year online retailer "Otto" is certainly much smaller than Amazon, might be because they actually pay taxes, higher wages, and do not facilitate fraud and trafficking through some shady "marketplace" as successfully as Amazon does.

    4. Re: Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your premise is wrong. There is no benefit for the consumer to having one single huge online retailer (like Amazon is in the USA) compared to healthy competition between a large number of webshops (like in Europe).

    5. Re: Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Norwegian here. We have multiple online stores to choose from, it's just that none of them have a multi-national near-monopoly status like Amazon. For instance, every book store that used to only sell books via physical shops have had an online shop for a decade now (Norli, Schibsted, Akademika, etc.) Similarly, if you want to buy electronics, we have several local suppliers that ship things over the internet after you order them (Komplett.no, ElkjÃp, etc.) So I think the answer is that we have several Amazon competitors here in Europe, it's just that none of them are as big (partly because we try to avoid monopolies), and none of them have become globally dominant companies (don't know why).

    6. Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Why are they unable to create their own popular online shop?

      For that matter, the entire EU seems to be lacking a proper Amazon competitor. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is the case. There are some bright minds posting on Slashdot - does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

      They have found whining bitching and moaning to be more in their style.

      But seriously - it is a bit of a conundrum. I've asked the same question many times. Especially in Germany, where they have long been able to turn out amazing engineering. Seems that minds that can do that can produce an online shopping experience that would beat all other online shopping experiences.

      But hey, let's ban things, institute weird laws presumably to protect people, and try to force the world to bend to their will. How the mighty have fallen.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

      Europe has plenty, (plenty meaning plentiful and implying plurals). You just haven't heard of them because Europe has strong consumer focused antitrust laws that prevent single companies from becoming the anti-competitive behemoths that the USA allows.

      The fact that the EU doesn't have a company the size of Amazon is a feature, not a flaw, and a damn good one at that.

    8. Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Otto is just one company. There are several like it in the EU also with >$1bn revenue. That's just the thing. Amazon has plenty of competitors in the EU, just the antitrust laws prevent them from becoming the anti-competitive monsters that Amazon is.

    9. Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Especially in Germany, where they have long been able to turn out amazing engineering. Seems that minds that can do that can produce an online shopping experience that would beat all other online shopping experiences.

      So what exactly makes Amazon a superior experience compared to one of the popular German webshops in your view?

      If it is a bad experience, people will buy more from the other "shops" Pretty simple. DOes Germany regulate how oftern you piss and the amount you have to stop after?

      "Citizen! We observe that you urinating 4 minutes and 25 seconds before your allowed legal time! As well, your limit per urination is 1 liter! You passed 1.75 liters!

      This is your final warning - another unforgiveable breach instiututes a disregard for social mores, and is simply along the path to social disorder. Obey or face the consequences!"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of online shops in the EU. Due to regulation they haven't all been gobbled up and become one massive shop.

      The law in question isn't weird. You can push your Amazon button and get a substitute product. One you didn't explicitly agree to order. You weren't informed about what this replacement is, and can't compare prices as it's a mystery product. How is that weird?

  3. LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Effing joke. You have to buy the buttons, and if they sell you something you didn't want return it.

    1. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I buy a button to buy X and they ship me Y, they're committing fraud. At what point should "return it" be some sort of justification for it? I have a better idea: if you buy a button to buy X and they ship you Y, you get to keep Y for free. At what point should we at any point make it easier for companies to engage in any activity that fucks over the consumer? Oh, right, because the government daring to step in when one person tries to scam^W "engage in capitalism with" another is some sort of shocking affront to our personal liberties to scam^W "engage in capitalism with" others. Honestly, fuck you.

    2. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by dissy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Effing joke. You have to buy the buttons, and if they sell you something you didn't want return it.

      It's more hilarious than that.
      When you set the button up on your wifi, you have to link the button to a product on amazon for it to order.

      So one has to purchase the button, install a smartphone app, give the button their wifi password, explicitly link it to a particular product, then push the button.

      Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product they linked the button to on their site after setting it up with a password to their wifi on a phone app...

      Am I to presume contracts signed in blood and sacrificing your first born in order to agree to are also not legally binding in germany under the reasoning all of that can be done on accident?

    3. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product they linked the button to

      Reading comprehension fail, it was right there in the summary: "Amazon's terms enable the company to switch out an ordered product with something else"

      Perhaps you would like to have Amazon sent you something else after "going through all that effort and work" to link the button to a specific product, but most sane people would expect Amazon to ship the product that was linked to, instead of something else.

    4. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Please do try to read TFS first. Yeah yeah I muse be new yere.

      Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product

      From TFS:

      "complained that Amazon's terms enable the company to switch out an ordered product with something else,

      see?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I buy a button to buy X and they ship me Y, they're committing fraud

      Sure and if pigs had wheels they would be a wagon. WTF does that have to do with a button for X makes them ship you X?

      Maybe you should educate yourself about the things you're commenting about before doing that.
      If I have a Dash button for a specific product, and the product is out, Amazon reserves the right to send me a similar product instead.
      If the proce for the product rose between the time when I bought the Dash button and the time I press it to order the product, Amazon will charge me the new (potentially higher) price.

      Both of these things break German consumer protection laws.

    6. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you missed is that Europe has strong laws for "distance selling", i.e. buying stuff on the internet.

      In a physical shop you can see and examine the goods. On the internet all you get is a stock photo of the item and a promise that it will match the description. If it doesn't you can return it. I'm not sure about Germany but in the UK you have 2 weeks to change your mind and Amazon pays the return postage. You only need return the item, self-destructing packaging etc doesn't get them off the hook.

      It goes further than that though. In this case the problem is that by pressing the Dash button you indicate you want a particular item at a particular price you were offered once. Amazon can substitute whatever it likes for that item and charge you whatever price it has today. Amazon abuses that by slowly ramping up prices and substituting inferior stuff.

      The ruling is basically saying that Amazon needs to stop altering the deal after the customer has accepted it. They could probably fix it just by emailing the customer with price changes and subs ahead of time, with a 24 hour grace period for people who pushed the button before seeing the mail.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by dissy · · Score: 2

      That would be your problem.
      I did read the summary, and the linked article, and the watch groups public complaint. They simply don't agree with each other.

      The article correctly points out the problem. The watch groups lawsuit doesn't mention that, nor does the judges ruling. That is what makes it such a cluster fuck worth pointing out as such.

      In fact I would be perfectly happy with having amazon clarifying the language of their terms.
      As-is that implies you may one day press your "hefty trash bags" button and receive a set of toenail clippers or something.
      In practice it has always meant that if you link to "hefty trash bags, 30 count, $9.49 from amazon wareshouse" that one day you may receive "hefty trash bags, 30 count, $8.99 from random seller"

      Also in practice when my "pepperidge farm goldfish crackers, spicy pizza" button was pressed and apparently that flavor was discontinued, far from sending a random item, amazon emailed saying the order wasn't placed due to unavailability.

      Sure, they most certainly suggested the other flavors of that brand as well as similar brands to re-link the button to. But it was a very simple matter of me just not doing that.

      Has anyone actually had a more expensive item ordered automatically as was implied can happen?
      Because yea I can see the issue with that.

      But the "issue" of getting a different product, which is really an issue of getting the same product from a different seller, clearly wasn't a problem enough to be bought up in court now was it.
      It also wasn't enough of a problem for the court to actually make amazon stop doing on their website.
      It also wasn't enough of a problem to have them reword their terms to state they wouldn't do that with the dash buttons, but instead they just outright banned the buttons all together.

      So yes, the entire situation is stupidly hilarious.
      The ruling was nonsensical, and the actual problems around the issue were not even bought up at the time as problems.

    8. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just like every large population of humans, a large portion of the German population will be idiots, this applies to people in all countries. Good education can push the average intelligence up, but isn't going to make an idiot into a genius.

      As you apparently fail to realise this fact, I have to assume you are also a colossal idiot.

    9. Re: LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, that may make an assumption on cost being the determination of value. An alternate product may not be of any value to the consumer for a variety of reasons. It may not work as well (see the fluffy ass comment) or a customer may be allergic to the alternative. I for instance cannot use Tide, I develop a rash anytime clothes are washed in it. Shipping me Tide when I ordered a cheaper product without my approval is in no way helpful. If you donâ(TM)t have a product, donâ(TM)t try to sell it.

    10. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the defending party should have explained that process in court ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re: LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The free market is a failure. It fails because there aren't an infinite number of suppliers of products to give consumers the option to choose the perfect item they require from the perfect supplier. And also that there is no way for a consumer to get all the information required to make a perfectly informed decision.

      Personally I welcome government regulations that stop me getting screwed over, because it means I can spend less time worrying about getting screwed over when I buy something and instead spend my time on something more interesting.

    12. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's too bad Germans are apparently colossal idiots. I always thought they were bright, but if you need a court to protect you from Amazon dash buttons, there's really no saving you from yourself.

      Remind of that the next time someone commits fraud against you.

      Amazon was quite up front about all of those facts. They made zero attempt at fraud. If anyone was defrauded, they did it to themselves.

      It's funny. Consumer protection rights on sales apply at time of sale. They're not rights that can be remove through contract. Every press of the Dash button is a sale, so those consumer protection rights apply every press. The fact that you believe Amazon should and can interject at its own discretion different products or at different prices without specific consumer approval at each sale because of up front terms is honestly appalling to me; it fails the most basic aspects of "the meeting of the minds" relevant in any sort of exchange. The logic you use, if allowed, would allow *any* seller online to put up front terms that allows them to ship you anything they want for any price they want to charge. Amazon shouldn't be able to do this, even if the scope of the damage is likely minimal.

      Being protected from nothing is pathetic coddling.

      A fool and his money are easily parted. You have the literal stupidity to not want laws that might at least offer the capability of getting money returned for being scammed. Let me guess: you think Amazon will, out of the kindness of their heart, refund you the difference if they ever "accidentally" sending you a product 10x as expensive. Man, it must be great living in your fantasy world where companies and individual sellers aren't prowling online to take your money without delivering on what was promised.

    13. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Now we’re really getting News For Nerds.

    14. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Then why are you still alive?

    15. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Nerds have to wipe their ass too!

    16. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You're the last person I expected to say this, well maybe in the last 5 here on slashdot. I can think of a few people nuttier than you, no offense. But you are 100% correct. Had amazon hidden these these things from consumers I could understand "regulating" them for it. But the fact that the person has to agree, AND buy the damn button means that this is the state telling people they are too stupid to buy things.

    17. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but if you need a court to protect you from Amazon dash buttons, there's really no saving you from yourself.

      Temporal issues alone. Germany wards off potential issues with consumer protection laws. America just sues every fucking company for every fucking thing in what appears to be an exercise in keeping the legal industry afloat.

      Germans as usual are more efficient, even at protecting people from themselves.

    18. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by fazig · · Score: 1

      Someone can be quite up front about wanting to sacrifice your first born to the Bloodgod and state that in their contract you have to sign.
      Unfortunately for them, if the terms of that contract violate local law the contract is void.

      Exactly this is what is going on here.
      If you don't get the product you agreed to when you ordered for the price you agreed to, because they substituted it for something else or want more money than you initially agreed upon, the contract can be voided. And if there's the equivalent of a class action lawsuit brought up against such practices, the judicial and executive system may shut those practices down.

      They can bring the Dash Button back if they removed that part and simply don't deliver anything if the wanted articles aren't available.

    19. Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      As-is that implies you may one day press your "hefty trash bags" button and receive a set of toenail clippers or something.

      Actually, that's exactly what it means. You've never seen Amazon incorrectly link two unrelated products and have them share reviews? Then you haven't been on Amazon very long. :-D

      But in all seriousness, even if Amazon does this, you can always return it, and as the reason, specify that it was not the product you ordered, and they'll pay for the shipping and everything, so this is mostly a non-issue.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re: LOL Protecting adults from themselves again by orbit500 · · Score: 1

      I pray they donâ(TM)t alter it further

  4. Politicians... by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

    How is pushing a Dash button different than electing a politican? You make your selection, expecting one thing, but you might get something different, but close. Maybe the German courts should outlaw politicians, too.

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

      To be fair the Germans have a long an convoluted political process that normally results on coalition negotiations. The Australians on the other hand, man we swap prime ministers more frequently than we test our smoke detectors.

    2. Re: Politicians... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Ahhh. A political ignoranti who doesn't understand the Connecticut compromise.

      No, we understand it quite well. The problem is that they came up with it in an era that was very different from our own. Back then:

      • Nobody as broadly vilified as President Trump or Hillary Clinton would ever have even made it to the ballot in enough states to win, because they didn't have giant, corporate-backed political party advertising machines pushing them.
      • The assumption was that electors would be highly respected people who would vote unfaithfully if an unconscionable candidate candidate somehow "won", and choose a different candidate.
      • They didn't have TV or airplanes, so the only way a candidate would ever pay the slightest bit of attention to minor states was if they had an exaggerated role in the election.
      • Accurately verifying a vote count on a national basis was challenging at best.
      • Slavery still existed. If voting had been one-man-one-vote, then the slave states would not have gotten the extra voting power from the three-fifths compromise when choosing a president. This was a major factor in the electoral college being supported initially.

      Obviously, things are very different today.

      Additionally, the disproportionate nature of the electoral college was not as extreme back then, because the population differences were not as extreme. In 1787, the two largest states (Pennsylvania and Virginia) had 10x the population of the smallest (Delaware). Pennsylvania had 3 electors, and Virginia had 12. Proportionally, this meant Delaware had about 2.4x the voting power of Pennsylvania.

      Right now, the most populous state (California) is more than 68x the population (Wyoming). Because Wyoming has such a low population, the two electors resulting from Wyoming's senate seats massively skew their power relative to most of the other states, and because the number of representatives is capped too low, all of the more populous states are currently massively underrepresented in both the House and the Electoral College. As a result, one voter in Wyoming is equivalent to almost four voters in California for Electoral College purposes, and equivalent to almost 1.3 voters even in the House.

      This is, not to put too fine a point on it, completely nuts. The skew has become unmanageably large because the low-population states are simply too much smaller than the high-population states. The larger that skew becomes, the less the electoral college vote resembles the popular vote, and the more disillusioned people become with the whole process.

      It really is time to ditch the electoral college. It has thoroughly outlived its usefulness, and only serves to further preclude any real possibility of a third-party candidate ever winning the office. But if we're not going to do that, we should at least increase the size of the House of Representatives until we are within +/-1% of proportionate representation to at least bring that skew slightly closer to sanity.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  5. Re: Friggin Nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not being able to separate what's best for the German people from Nazism eh? How about you petition trump to build a wall on the northern boarder too. When you're economy collapses we don't need you as refugees.

  6. reading by fluffernutter · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's not a problem that a country wants to make sure its citizens are fully informed before buying a product, get over it already. *GASP* oh no they'll have to click a few times and... READ! I can see why the Americans in the crowd are revolting.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no power an government can't take over citizens that fluffernutter won't defend.

      Yeah enfocing consumer potection laws == govpocalypse

      personally, I prefer to live in a civilised wold where there are rules and regulations that keep it civilised. If I ever get tired of pesk laws, I'll up sticks and move to the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo where there's no government to interfere with, well, anything really.

      What's interesting is you're not objecting to the massive amount of power amazon has been granted by the government with its limited liability protection. It seems your libertarianism only really swings one way and is really more corpratism.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:reading by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Owch.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:reading by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      personally, I prefer to live in a civilised wold where there are rules and regulations that keep it civilised.

      False dichotomy. There's a lot of room between anarchy and where we are today, and one could reasonably choose a point in between those two without being a radical.

      There are only three things we need rules and regulations against: harm, fraud, and deprivation. We can argue about where the lines should be, and how much text is required to cover all of the cases, and even how much we should protect people from themselves. But Amazon was very clear on how the devices functioned, and they are also very understanding about returns. As numerous people have pointed out in this discussion, they are actually possibly more prone to sending the customer an email asking them if they'd like an alternative than to actually sending it without asking. It's not clear who's being protected from anything here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:reading by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying ... any of those thing. What I'm saying is that there's to government power that he won't defend. You're rather the same. Oh, there's always an argument why it's good, of course, of course, but the conclusion is always the same with you guys. "Yup, it totally good for government to take this one more inch of power."

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:reading by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Please explain what power they are gaining over their citizens by forcing all of them to be more knowledgeable and informed when they purchase products? What is the evil motivation? I'm dying to hear it, because it seems to me that a government with plans to rule with abuse would want their citizens less informed, not more informed.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying ... any of those thing.

      You jumped straight from "this seems fine" to "there's to government power that he won't defend". You clearly don't like gvovernment powers and arenaive about it so you'll have to put up with hyperbole and sarcasm from me.

      You're rather the same.

      And now, to defend your argument, you start making up demonstrable lies.

      the conclusion is always the same with you guys

      Again, more lies.

      Why do you have to lie about me in order to make an argument? That's a strong indication your arguments hav no merit otherwise you could use actual facts.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy.

      Hyperbole and sarcasm. I know the attitude of the perosn I'm responding to.

      There are only three things we need rules and regulations against: harm, fraud, and deprivation.

      Why those three?

      But Amazon was very clear on how the devices functioned, and they are also very understanding about returns.

      That is not in and of itself sufficient: the terms have to be legal as well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:reading by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are only three things we need rules and regulations against: harm, fraud, and deprivation.

      Why those three?

      Because those are the only three things that you can do to a person. You can damage them, you can deceive them into making poor decisions based on your false information, or you can take something away from them or stand in the way of their getting it. Anything else is something someone does to themselves. Fraud is real, but there was no fraud here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Firstly, you've provided a good justification, but not WHY they're needed in the deeper sense. Like why is it important to prevent harm, fraud and deprivation. what's the underlying philosoph there?

      Because those are the only three things that you can do to a person.

      Those are already the basis of many rules and regulations already. Even those awful religion inspired controlling ones are supposedly done for the good of the person on the receiving end, in other words to regulate against harm. Take the anti-gay laws that used to be so popular. People used to think (and some still do) that you can basically convert people to be gay, which in their mind is doing a great deal of harm to another person. You can justify almost anything under "harm" good and bad.

      And consumer protection laws (of the sort we're discussing) definitely fall into that category. They didn't come out of nowhere with some beaurocrat saying "hey let's randomly regulate business" as the "big gubbmint teh evil" types seem to believe[+]. They came around to prevent the large amounts of fraud and harm that were going on. Then you've got the transitive ones. Like should you have an army? Well it's kind of necessary to have one to prevent harm from outside your nation. Covers that I guess. But running an army is expensive. So now you need a functioning economy[*] to in order to keep up that protection. And without one of those, harm would likely ensue etc...

      Fraud is real, but there was no fraud here.

        It's long been decided that not ever possible contract is legal, on the basis that many times that's been harmful.

      [+] As in I've literally had somone on slashdot try to convince me of that before.

      [*] you need one of those for decent healthcare too.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:reading by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The philosophy is that society doesn't function if you don't maintain it, and society is made up of individuals. People pushing a button for glad bags and getting hefty bags doesn't threaten society, especially if you can return the hefty bags.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The philosophy is that society doesn't function if you don't maintain it, and society is made up of individuals.

      Yes, I agree with that. But that implies more than just protecting individuals, it also implies some sort of need to make society function too, though of course the two are tied together.

      Don't however confuse an attempt an imprefect rule to prevent harm with something tht's not designed to do so. Perfect is the enemny of good and if we insist on perfection or nothing will will end up with nothing which is much worse than something pretty good.

      People pushing a button for glad bags and getting hefty bags doesn't threaten society, especially if you can return the hefty bags.

      Except we've seen that giving retailers a lot of free reign has led to harm. Perhaps in this case, the law was over broad or was written at a time when this kind of use case simply didn't exist. You also have the flip side that there may be something that's got a moderate chance of causing harm but only for some people. What propotion of people does it have to affect before it's worth legislating?

      I certainly think it's an especially inane fiction that consumers ae going to read and understnad 100 pages of dense legalese before purchasing a cheap (or in fact any) poduct. I think it's reasonable tht the law recognises that.

      Crafting laws that allow every kind of reasonable behaviour while blocking every kind of unreasonable behaviour is incredibly difficult. Writing the laws such that they are future proof to unimagined kinds of behaviour is essentially impossible.

      A law that is't imprefect is not necessarily a bad law, merely an imprefect one. How would you modify the law to allow what you consider reasonable but to still disallow the harmful things it prevents?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you are using the wrong system of logic. Remember you need to build a system of logic on axioms. Once the axioms are in place you use them to reach conclusions. So for example in this case we have:

      Fundamental axioms:

      1. gubmint is teh evul

      Proposition:

      this law is the government doing something bad.

      Proof:

      Follows directly from axiom 1.

      See?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:reading by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      This doesn't answer my question.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:reading by lgw · · Score: 1

      You can'y buy this product. It's not good for you. You're not smart enough to decide. Your betters must decide for you what's best for you.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:reading by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What propotion of people does it have to affect before it's worth legislating?

      Well, the questions are how much does it cost, and how much is being spent to prevent it? Because in this case it's not costing much since people can send things back (via trucks that are already in the neighborhood) and because it's not happening much to begin with. At least, so it appears. I'm open to statistics which challenge that idea. How's about just set some standards as to how much effort people have to spend to inform you of terms and conditions? No small print, anything which could be considered weaseling has to be done in large print up front in your advertisement to the point that it's an advertised feature.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This doesn't answer my question.

      Well no of course it doesn't. You asked someone to explain his reasoning, but who is operating with the axiom that the government is evil. The only explanations you will get back are that of course what it's doing is bad because the government is by definition evil.

      IOW if you want anything approaching reasoning, you asked the wrong person because there is no reasoning behind his stance.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:reading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      How's about just set some standards as to how much effort people have to spend to inform you of terms and conditions? No small print, anything which could be considered weaseling has to be done in large print up front in your advertisement to the point that it's an advertised feature.

      That would be a start. Though in the EU we have strong consumer rights so that means you can be pretty sure about a lot of things regardless of what the small print suggests. I think that's a pretty good system.

      You can walk into a store, buy something and you know your rights pretty exactly without having to sign or read anything. With online shopping it's more or less the same and it's more or less the same with older mail ordering too.

      I'm not that bothered by this particular ruling either way. It seems like it's found an edge case in the law which was written before this kind of thing was a possibility.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. They did read by virtig01 · · Score: 1

    The customer did read, and clicked... and bought himself an Amazon Dash button.

  8. Key difference by enriquevagu · · Score: 2

    Pushing a button in a screenless device does not show the current price of the item you pretend to buy, which may differ from the price it used to be when you acquired the button. And if you do not have elephant memory, you do not even remember the original price.

    Seems like a fair ruling to me.

    1. Re:Key difference by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      And if someone ELSE gets hold of your physical button there's zero authentication, fraud is a click away. Someone wanders in the office and presses it 5 times, nobody notices right away... it's 100% stupid.

      You had it right up until the moment you started flapping on about pressing it 5 times. I don't have a Dash button, but even I know that you can only press it once every 24 hours (or something close to that). Stick to what you know and don't make shit up on the fly. Furthermore, all the shit is going to be delivered to YOU, and Amazon has a pretty fantastic return policy.. So, really, the worst case scenario is 1 or 2 orders before shit starts showing up and you can return most items for free...

    2. Re:Key difference by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Pushing a button in a screenless device does not show the current price of the item you pretend to buy, which may differ from the price it used to be when you acquired the button. And if you do not have elephant memory, you do not even remember the original price.

      Seems like a fair ruling to me.

      And quantity, too.

      The dash buttons don't say anything about quantity or price. You may have ordered a 24-pack of paper towels for $10 and got the button, but who's to say that the next time you push it, it's not a 24-pack for $15 (you bought it on sale, which happens often enough)? Or even more dastardly, it's 12 for $10 (or more likely, a 20 pack).

      Same with the other stuff - it's all stuff you use like laundry detergent and such, and the stuff comes in varying quantity and pricing.

      Hell, I don't know what happens if it out of stock - maybe you only want the 24 pack and if you run out to just wait rather than they send you a 12 pack.

  9. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem is, the user can't agree to this, without actually being shown what they are supposed to agree with. The relevant eCommerce laws say that the full and current price/ amount must be shown to the user, with an explicit acknowledgement that they are now ordering this quantity of items for this specified cost.

    This button would be legal if it were equipped with an eInk display showing the current price/ quantity (and the legal fine print making it obvious that hitting the button will order it now).

  10. Get out and shop by AndyKron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you need a dash button there's something seriously wrong with you.

    1. Re:Get out and shop by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

      If you need a dash button there's something seriously wrong with you.

      It's a good thing you don't get to decide what I do and freedom is still a thing.

      Because there's nothing as big as a waste of time to get in the car and drive 5 miles to closest grocery store for laundry detergent when I can press my dash button and have it tomorrow morning and use that hour of my time for something else.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
  11. Re:Hmmm by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

    The problem is, the user can't agree to this, without actually being shown what they are supposed to agree with. The relevant eCommerce laws say that the full and current price/ amount must be shown to the user, with an explicit acknowledgement that they are now ordering this quantity of items for this specified cost.

    This button would be legal if it were equipped with an eInk display showing the current price/ quantity (and the legal fine print making it obvious that hitting the button will order it now).

    Thanks for the explanation (seriously). After hearing that Amazon can substitute other items and also that the price can fluctuate, I get why the Germans aren't keen on this.. I don't have any Dash buttons, but if I can't be sure I'm going to get what I want, at a price I know about beforehand, I don't think I'll be getting any..

  12. Crazy consumer "protection" by itsme1234 · · Score: 1

    If you want to check out some crazy "everything for consumers" go and try pay online the motorway toll for Austria. You need to do it 18 days in advance. Because the customer has rights, needs two weeks to think, plus three days for the (snail) mail to reach them (yes, they are thinking you pay the motorway online and then after two weeks send a letter saying you don't agree to it anymore). And because you could change your mind in two weeks you are not allowed to pay online the toll for today. Or tomorrow. You need to actually stop somewhere (not a drive-through toll boot, you usually need to park, go inside a gas station or something) and buy it. Sure, you can buy it from your phone or computer too - but it'll be valid only from 30 or 31st of January, no matter if you want to drive now. It's all for your benefit, you need to be protected, what if you change your mind?

  13. Yes because the relationship is assymetrical by aepervius · · Score: 2

    Big corp can financially and massively comes with scheme to give the false impression or not deliver what is expected. Joe public does not have the resource to either document/study/understand every such a scheme and their result, neither the financial power to fight corp. Thus in all countries, SANE countries not beholden to do blow job to corp, there is a form of consumer protection. If you don't like it, too bad for you, most of us recognize why such laws are in places.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Yes because the relationship is assymetrical by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You know they send you an email with your orders ?
      You can cancel before they even ship.

  14. Our toddler is very competitive by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    He ordered truckloads of condoms using a electric toothbrush.

    1. Re:Our toddler is very competitive by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Apparently, he does not want to share his future inheritance.

  15. Re: Friggin Nazis by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    How about you petition trump to build a wall on the northern boarder too. When you're economy collapses we don't need you as refugees.

    Americans have guns, bombs, and trucks, to say nothing of backhoes and the like. You can't keep us out with a wall. You can't keep anyone out with a wall along a border that length, in fact. Or, for that matter, the length of the US-Mexico border.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. An appeal is not possible by gweihir · · Score: 1

    This actually was already an appeal and it was found to be lacking. Hence an appeal to a higher court was not allowed. German courts can do that. The only appeal Amazon could do is to the German supreme court, with absolutely no chances to even be heard.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  17. Re: Friggin Nazis by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    Sure thing buddy.. Sure thing...