Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/07/31/amazon-responsible-for-recalling-dangerous-products-sold-through-site.html
…
6 Likes
Good.
Next I hope the courts can hold the other big platforms responsible for the hate speech and revenge porn and other dangerous content they allow to be published.
11 Likes
Realistically I feel that Amazon should be in an even better position that the classic brick and mortar stores to get in touch with its customers and inform them of any potential danger. Of course addressing the ever increasing pop-up vendors with names like SYKW selling questionable products might be a better start.
7 Likes
Interesting. In UK I had an email from Amazon a while back - and a refund - for a consumable item I bought from a third party seller but fulfilled by Amazon, that had turned out to be counterfeit.
Would they have done this in the US before this ruling?
(It was not ‘dangerous’ per se, but there were reports of it not functioning correctly.)
3 Likes
I’ve gotten two phone calls from Boar’s Head over their deli meats recall in the past week, and I didn’t even buy the meat from Boar’s Head. I bought it from my local grocery store. If they can do that, I don’t think what the CPSC is asking Amazon to do is at all burdensome.
5 Likes
For sure.
I genuinely don’t know, what are the rules for brick and mortar stores on this? Because (depending on how their point of sale systems work) most have no problem emailing me a receipt just based on the credit card I use, and therefore should have no problem emailing me about recalls either. We should demand consistency in how we treat different (at least large) companies. I especially think we should do that for supermarket chains.
3 Likes
No idea. I know places like Wal-Mart and Target have paper copies of recalls posted near the customer service area, but I’ve never been contacted by them that a product I bought was defective. When they can look up a product by a credit card you’d think they would be able to flag the system the next time the card was used to alert you of a recall. Or in case of the “apps” just alert you via the app if you store your credit card info.
1 Like
Actually, that’s a bit creepy (in data protection ways). How did a manufacturer know that you had bought some of its product from a retailer?
I am guessing it was an online transaction for it to be possible in the first place, and that the transaction came with a notice that they could share your data with others such as manufacturers?
If you actually bought it at a local store, I’m a bit perplexed.
1 Like
I bought it at ShopRite. I have a ShopRite card, which is how you get discounts and coupons these days. It also creates a record of every purchase I make there. Which…yeah, a little creepy. Although in this case, the power was used for good.
7 Likes
Ah, makes sense. At last, a beneficial use-case for loyalty cards beyond price savings and being marketed to all the time. 
3 Likes
It’s also come in handy for returns when I couldn’t find my receipt. I’m not sure either positive use makes up for the enshittification stuff, but those horses left the barn years ago, so…
7 Likes
But where will I be able to get a big bag of glass?
3 Likes
“Amazon also claimed that sending messages to initial purchasers about “potential” safety issues and providing initial purchasers with Amazon. com credits – rather than refunds incentivizing product return or destruction – were sufficient to remedy the product hazards.”
It sounds like Amazon isn’t going with the transparently laughable claim that they can’t reach people, which they can do and have been doing; they’ve just been opting to substitute weasel words and scrip for actual recalls because it’s cheaper.
I’d assume that a company of that size wouldn’t make such a move without somebody in legal concluding that it was defensible-ish enough to at least not lead to penalties large enough to spoil the savings; but it’s certainly an abundantly callous look.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
