Amazon under fire - Unsafe products and regulating online sales

[paddy-stone]

I think it's funny sometimes when I see that some people mistake educated with smart/intelligent. Being able to remember things and pass tests does not make them intelligent. Intelligence IMO is being able to work things out, sure having some formal training will help you work some things out, there's no denying that. But true intelligence comes from looking at problems and seeing a way clear to solve them, not reciting something they read or heard. I'm not saying an education is bad, far from it. Just that some people don't have the means, or in some cases the time/ability to get a formal education, that doesn't make them dumb/stupid. I have been lucky enough to get an education, but I have also been lucky enough to know some very intelligent people that didn't have much of an education too.. they have impressed me with their insights way more than someone that made a lot of money (that mostly had a lot of money to start with anyway).

 

In this case, yes it would be kind of stupid to buy something like this that is protecting your child, or supposed to be anyway, without checking up on it... but would it be more, or less stupid to have none at all, as you couldn't afford it?

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

I think it's funny sometimes when I see that some people mistake educated with smart/intelligent. Being able to remember things and pass tests does not make them intelligent. Intelligence IMO is being able to work things out, sure having some formal training will help you work some things out, there's no denying that. But true intelligence comes from looking at problems and seeing a way clear to solve them, not reciting something they read or heard. I'm not saying an education is bad, far from it. Just that some people don't have the means, or in some cases the time/ability to get a formal education, that doesn't make them dumb/stupid. I have been lucky enough to get an education, but I have also been lucky enough to know some very intelligent people that didn't have much of an education too.. they have impressed me with their insights way more than someone that made a lot of money (that mostly had a lot of money to start with anyway).

 

I agree, education does not i itself make you intelligent and a lack of education does not make you stupid.  My comment was simply to highlight that it is wrong to suggest that being poor means you are stupid. Life is a challenge, it is also full of choices that affect our earnings. While one clever person may want to get on the ladder towards a high income another very intelligent person may instead want to choose a different path. I know one lady who gave up her directorship of a large company to instead be a nurse. Now she is almost always skint, but she is happy with her career choice.

20 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

 

In this case, yes it would be kind of stupid to buy something like this that is protecting your child, or supposed to be anyway, without checking up on it... but would it be more, or less stupid to have none at all, as you couldn't afford it?

 

 

In Europe it is illegal to carry a child without suitable restraints. Those restraints are dictated in law. They need to have relevant certification and are also of different classes depending on the height and weight of the child. The problem is that people do trust the likes of Amazon, and it is often that misplaced trust that leads to problems. If it says on the site that a child seat is suitable for x child, then people do trust that. Why? Well in traditional shops we know items will meet the required standards. Over many years this trust has been built up. It does go wrong at times and that is where trading standards here in the UK step in and investigate. They also work with customs to keep an eye on counterfeit goods, poor unsafe goods etc. They investigate any incidents to make sure standards are adhered to. However in the internet age loopholes are being employed, and people have not fully changed their attitudes and expectations. This is where hopefully companies like Amazon will rise to the challenge and if they do not we may now be able to use OFCOM to force them to get their act together. If this is not an online danger then is certainly should be classed as such.

[wANKER]

Unrelated but, the BBC seems to have a serious agenda against Amazon....

[Guest]

2 hours ago, wANKER said:

Unrelated but, the BBC seems to have a serious agenda against Amazon....

I am not sure that is the case, it is just Amazon are doing a lot of things that need looking at. The BBC is unique in the way it is funded. While some people hat that, it does allow it to not be tied to advertisers and report things that no other large media operation could. It does mean the BBC get a lot of flack, but they also do a lot of good in taking companies to task whatever their size. Did you watch the program? There is some very interesting and accurate information there. Don’t forget, the BBC have also done shows with an Amazon director going back to the floor,  and also done many shows on radio talking about Amazons success, their IT systems and a lot more. But when delivery drivers are using people’s laws as toilets, or sleeping in their vans to get the work done it also gets talked about. Both sides, the positives and the bad stuff get air time.

 

If you read the accompanying article to the program you will see it provides quite a balanced report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/CLQYZENMBI/amazon-data

[RonnieOP]

IMO the blame shouldnt be on Amazon.

 

When you make a purchase you are responsible for doing the research prior to buying it.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

IMO the blame shouldnt be on Amazon.

 

When you make a purchase you are responsible for doing the research prior to buying it.

So it is fine for retailers to sell whatever they want, even illegal products that are unsafe because it is the purchasers responsibility? Does that apply to everything? How does a buyer know the eyes on the doll they bought are not going to fall out and choke their child, how without their own spectrum analyser do they test an item to see if the paint contains poisonous chemicals that are banned? You real,y haven’t thought this through have you.... 

[RonnieOP]

5 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

So it is fine for retailers to sell whatever they want, even illegal products that are unsafe because it is the purchasers responsibility? Does that apply to everything? How does a buyer know the eyes on the doll they bought are not going to fall out and choke their child, how without their own spectrum analyser do they test an item to see if the paint contains poisonous chemicals that are banned? You real,y haven’t thought this through have you.... 

Retailers just sell things they dont make them. Well for the most part.

 

If you bought a Note 7 off amazon would you blame them when it blew up or would you blame samsung?

 

Now it is the responsibility of the retailer to then yank the product off the shelf and stop selling them when things like that happen.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Retailers just sell things they dont make them. Well for the most part.

 

If you bought a Note 7 off amazon would you blame them when it blew up or would you blame samsung?

 

Now it is the responsibility of the retailer to then yank the product off the shelf and stop selling them when things like that happen.

 

I had a contract with the retailer, simple as that. It is the retailer I have to deal with for a refund, not Samsung. It is then up to the retailer to go up the supply chain. 
 
We have no choice but to rely on our trust of a retailer as there is a limit to the research we can do. As I said, we cannot have a whole testing lab for every product we but, nor do we have access to sales, returns and fault figures or any of the other customer issues the retailer has on a daily basis. Suggesting as you have that it is the customers fault is plainly wrong. Retailers have not only a duty of care, but a legal responsibility to supply goods that are fit for purpose, of reasonable quality and meet safety standards in the locale they are being sold. Amazon are failing on all three of those and need to be held responsible for all the products sold through their platform.

[paddy-stone]

@Phill104

 

Apart from the disagreement initially about the price, I have agreed with pretty much every other point/comment you have made in this thread. Even the price "disagreement" was really just more of a point about the general "price doesn't indicate quality", rather than in this instance with the car seat... I too would not buy a car seat for a child for that low of a price, unless I had overwhelming proof that it was safe to do so.

The points made about Amazon in this thread can be correlated to ANY retailer really... there should be more checks and balances when a retailer decides to sell x or Y product for sure, I completely agree with you in this.

[ARikozuM]

12 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Retailers just sell things they dont make them. Well for the most part.

 

If you bought a Note 7 off amazon would you blame them when it blew up or would you blame samsung?

 

Now it is the responsibility of the retailer to then yank the product off the shelf and stop selling them when things like that happen.

 

You blame Amazon. The sales contract is not with you and Samsung, it is with you and the store you purchased from. The store will then handle whatever processes need undertaking with Samsung. You can circumvent the store and go to Samsung directly, but the store is the contract holder.

 

I think Amazon should be held liable as they are the marketplace. If this were to happen at a brick and mortar, they would have a lawsuit on their hands for selling the insufficient products even though they didn't make them. It's why we don't spend money on $20 pet strollers when we know people will overestimate the ratings. It's why we only purchase American, Canadian, or Mexican made over Chinese manufacturing. 

 

Amazon must be held responsible for allowing these products on their shelves just as everyone else would. 

[Touch My Hamm]

On 2/17/2020 at 9:21 AM, Phill104 said:

Panorama attempted to contact the brands involved. It received a reply from only one of them, which said it was not the manufacturer.

As much as its shady already some of the sellers on Amazon these days, this in particular makes my steam boil. I hate it when sellers say things like this. "Welp im not making it so I have nothing to do with it" Well you are the one selling the product and its under your name? Amazon allowing these sellers is one thing, maybe have more software/people finding shady sellers like this. But the actual seller should hold some responsibility. This wouldn't work for other things. I have a store and we start to sell meth, Sry officer I didnt manufacturer the Meth I only distribute it and put a label on it.

[RonnieOP]

8 hours ago, Phill104 said:

I had a contract with the retailer, simple as that. It is the retailer I have to deal with for a refund, not Samsung. It is then up to the retailer to go up the supply chain. 
 
We have no choice but to rely on our trust of a retailer as there is a limit to the research we can do. As I said, we cannot have a whole testing lab for every product we but, nor do we have access to sales, returns and fault figures or any of the other customer issues the retailer has on a daily basis. Suggesting as you have that it is the customers fault is plainly wrong. Retailers have not only a duty of care, but a legal responsibility to supply goods that are fit for purpose, of reasonable quality and meet safety standards in the locale they are being sold. Amazon are failing on all three of those and need to be held responsible for all the products sold through their platform.

Im not talking about who you contact for a refund.

 

Whos fault was it that the note 7 caught fire. The retailer or the manufacturer?

 

Clearly it was the company who produced the product.

 

When you buy a product your trust should go to the manufacturer not the retailer. The retailer literally is just an avenue for you to buy the manufacturers product. They are not responsible for R&D, QA testing, etc.

 

So i have no idea why you think amazon has any responsibility for the product.

 

Unless you want the cost of products to go up DRASTICALLY you cannot feasibly expect a retailer to personal test every single product that is sold on their platform.

 

Thats like holding LTT responsible gor the opinions of someone who posts on their forum.

[ARikozuM]

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Im not talking about who you contact for a refund.

It doesn't matter who you go to for a refund. It's about bargaining power. The retailer, in this case Amazon, has better ability to do something about this and they should. 

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Whos fault was it that the note 7 caught fire. The retailer or the manufacturer?

Again, it isn't just about "it lit on fire". It's about selling the products in the first place. 

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Clearly it was the company who produced the product.

And it's clearly Amazon selling said products with some being fulfilled specifically by Amazon. 

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

When you buy a product your trust should go to the manufacturer not the retailer. The retailer literally is just an avenue for you to buy the manufacturers product. They are not responsible for R&D, QA testing, etc.

The bigger the store, the bigger the onus is on maintaining quality of products. If I sell a bad bag of dog food, customers aren't going to go after the company, the first target will be me. I sold them that bag and it may not have agreed with their pets. Is that my fault? No. But the perception is that it was my fault. 

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

So i have no idea why you think amazon has any responsibility for the product.

Don't defend the multi-billion dollar company for doing the least amount of work to ensure that its marketplace has safe products. 

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Unless you want the cost of products to go up DRASTICALLY you cannot feasibly expect a retailer to personal test every single product that is sold on their platform.

Let the costs go up! That would incense people to go to smaller stores that have similar pricing, but have products that they can stand behind. You HAVE to expect a larger company to do more than just rely on algorithms and customer reviews. 

25 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Thats like holding LTT responsible gor the opinions of someone who posts on their forum.

A forum post didn't sell you anything. But in case it did, we have a representative suing Twitter for a fictional cow. And yes, they are suing BOTH Twitter and the fictional f#cking cow. 

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, paddy-stone said:

@Phill104

 

Apart from the disagreement initially about the price, I have agreed with pretty much every other point/comment you have made in this thread. Even the price "disagreement" was really just more of a point about the general "price doesn't indicate quality", rather than in this instance with the car seat... I too would not buy a car seat for a child for that low of a price, unless I had overwhelming proof that it was safe to do so.

The points made about Amazon in this thread can be correlated to ANY retailer really... there should be more checks and balances when a retailer decides to sell x or Y product for sure, I completely agree with you in this.

True but the average person either expects "cheap just means fire sale" or "if it's cheap and broken, I'll notice when I unbox it... right?" Which are both fallacies, but commonly believed ones.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

Im not talking about who you contact for a refund.

 

Whos fault was it that the note 7 caught fire. The retailer or the manufacturer?

 

Clearly it was the company who produced the product.

 

When you buy a product your trust should go to the manufacturer not the retailer. The retailer literally is just an avenue for you to buy the manufacturers product. They are not responsible for R&D, QA testing, etc.

 

So i have no idea why you think amazon has any responsibility for the product.

 

Unless you want the cost of products to go up DRASTICALLY you cannot feasibly expect a retailer to personal test every single product that is sold on their platform.

 

Thats like holding LTT responsible gor the opinions of someone who posts on their forum.

In the UK you can ask either the retailer or the manufacture for a refund/replacement/repair. Amazon are trying to skirt the law by "not" being a "retailer". Like the post offices don't sell the goods posted through them... Amazon needed to be a standard postal service... but instead are a middle man... who also takes a % of takings, not a one off flat rate delivery/arbitration fee. So... cake, eat it, and all that. I'll just sit here with my popcorn watching both customers, companies and forum posters, trying to eat and keep their cake at the same time getting messy and confused.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

It doesn't matter who you go to for a refund. It's about bargaining power. The retailer, in this case Amazon, has better ability to do something about this and they should. 

I think they shouldn't be selling a $3 car seat because that one should be pretty obvious that it's unsafe,although you can't expect a retailer selling hundreds of thousands of items to verify every single item they sell.

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Again, it isn't just about "it lit on fire". It's about selling the products in the first place. 

 The retailer wouldn't know of the item being dangerous and I wouldn't expect them to pull the item until the manufacturer issues a recall. It's on the consumer to pay attention and have common sense to stuff that should be obvious like putting their childs life at risk with some suspiciously cheap car seat or buying a phone that could burn you which was all over the news.

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Let the costs go up! That would incense people to go to smaller stores that have similar pricing, but have products that they can stand behind. You HAVE to expect a larger company to do more than just rely on algorithms and customer reviews. 

Yeah good luck with that, every other retailer would just increase prices, and for those that don't have smaller stores to go to would suffer paying more.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

Im not talking about who you contact for a refund.

 

Whos fault was it that the note 7 caught fire. The retailer or the manufacturer?

 

It doesn’t matter who the fault is, the retailer is who the contract is with and under EU and UK law, probably Australian law too, the retailer takes responsibility to the customer.

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

Clearly it was the company who produced the product.

 

 

See above, every retailer has a responsibility to their customers.

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

When you buy a product your trust should go to the manufacturer not the retailer. The retailer literally is just an avenue for you to buy the manufacturers product. They are not responsible for R&D, QA testing, etc.

 

So i have no idea why you think amazon has any responsibility for the product.

 

Total bollox. You build a trust with a retailer. I can buy the same product from a number of shops, but I choose a particular one because I trust them to support me should something go wrong. They have a legal duty of care, but not all retailers stand by that until they are pushed. Others just do the right thing and will go above and beyond to help their customers. Some companies build a reputation for that and it makes them successful as a result. Many companies go under because they do not stand by their products.

 

I have often visited big companies that sell all sorts of goods. They test products in house, they pull in third parties to investigate faults. They buy based on how they are supported by manufacturers, and the quality of their products. They also will not sell any product that does not comply with local laws and safety regulations. It is really only online only retailers that fail the customer to this end. So yes, under law the retailers are responsible. Not sure why you don’t see that.

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

 

Unless you want the cost of products to go up DRASTICALLY you cannot feasibly expect a retailer to personal test every single product that is sold on their platform.

 

Thats like holding LTT responsible gor the opinions of someone who posts on their forum.

See my above comment. While they cannot, especially small retailers, test every product they can an legally have to ensure every product meets all relevant standards and laws. The loophole that allows online retailers such as Amazon to sell products through overseas channels, thereby circumventing local laws, needs to be closed. That is what is happening here, and as I said if I can easily find in an hour over 50 products I can purchase through Amazon that would be illegal to sell through a bricks an mortar shop here in the EU, then Amazon need to be held accountable. 

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

It doesn't matter who you go to for a refund. It's about bargaining power. The retailer, in this case Amazon, has better ability to do something about this and they should. 

Again, it isn't just about "it lit on fire". It's about selling the products in the first place. 

And it's clearly Amazon selling said products with some being fulfilled specifically by Amazon. 

The bigger the store, the bigger the onus is on maintaining quality of products. If I sell a bad bag of dog food, customers aren't going to go after the company, the first target will be me. I sold them that bag and it may not have agreed with their pets. Is that my fault? No. But the perception is that it was my fault. 

Don't defend the multi-billion dollar company for doing the least amount of work to ensure that its marketplace has safe products. 

Let the costs go up! That would incense people to go to smaller stores that have similar pricing, but have products that they can stand behind. You HAVE to expect a larger company to do more than just rely on algorithms and customer reviews. 

A forum post didn't sell you anything. But in case it did, we have a representative suing Twitter for a fictional cow. And yes, they are suing BOTH Twitter and the fictional f#cking cow. 

If the costs go up for amazon then they go up for the smaller retail stores as well. Are you under the impression that they would be safe from these rules as well? 

You would be hurting them more then you would amazon.

 

Literally nothing you have said makes any sense. and comes off more of a "I hate the billion dollar company amazon".

 

Amazon sells products other people make. When you buy something thats crap why would you blame amazon? If I go to my local used game store thats mom and pop owned and I buy a game that has a game crashing bug do i talk shit about the mom and pop store for selling it?

 

If you buy a $2 flashlight from amazon and its about as bright as a lighter. You blame the flashlight maker. not amazon.

 

When you buy something you are responsible for looking up reviews on the product. A shitty product is a shitty product no matter who i buy it from.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think they shouldn't be selling a $3 car seat because that one should be pretty obvious that it's unsafe,although you can't expect a retailer selling 100's of thousands of items to verify every single item they sell.

 The retailer wouldn't know of the item being dangerous and I wouldn't expect them to pull the item until the manufacturer issues a recall.

 

The use here is Amazon have been told by a number of local agencies these products do not comply, yet they still remain for sale.

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

It's on the consumer to pay attention and have common sense to stuff that should be obvious like putting their childs life at risk on some suspiciously cheap car seat or buying a phone that could burn you which was all over the news.
 

Not all products are that easy for the customer to detect as unsafe, but if they do not comply with local laws then the retailer has a legal responsibility to not sell them.

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

 

[RonnieOP]

On 2/19/2020 at 1:22 PM, paddy-stone said:

I think it's funny sometimes when I see that some people mistake educated with smart/intelligent. Being able to remember things and pass tests does not make them intelligent. Intelligence IMO is being able to work things out, sure having some formal training will help you work some things out, there's no denying that. But true intelligence comes from looking at problems and seeing a way clear to solve them, not reciting something they read or heard. I'm not saying an education is bad, far from it. Just that some people don't have the means, or in some cases the time/ability to get a formal education, that doesn't make them dumb/stupid. I have been lucky enough to get an education, but I have also been lucky enough to know some very intelligent people that didn't have much of an education too.. they have impressed me with their insights way more than someone that made a lot of money (that mostly had a lot of money to start with anyway).

 

In this case, yes it would be kind of stupid to buy something like this that is protecting your child, or supposed to be anyway, without checking up on it... but would it be more, or less stupid to have none at all, as you couldn't afford it?

 

 

This.

 

Imo we need to have more self responsibility instead of blaming others for our dumb decisions. Just because its being sold at a retail store doesnt mean its good. If you are a buy first ask questions later kind of person thats fine. But that is your fault.

 

If you are a parent whos buying a brand new car seat for $10 then you shouldnt be a parent as your judgement is horrible. The kids safety is at a huge risk just by having you as a parent.

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

On 2/17/2020 at 7:30 AM, paddy-stone said:

I agree to some extent, BUT the price of an item does not determine it's quality, or indeed in this case it's safety. This type of thinking does more harm than good, to think the price denotes some kind of quality, build etc.

But it often does denote the quality. More-so with products made of plastic or fabric.

 

Often cheap things made of fabric, have low thread counts and are barely any more durable than paper.

 

While I'm on that topic. I bought an "Amazon" branded top a few months back, the fabric was so cheap, I may as well could have bought the exact same item from Walmart.

[ARikozuM]

49 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But it often does denote the quality. More-so with products made of plastic or fabric.

 

Often cheap things made of fabric, have low thread counts and are barely any more durable than paper.

 

While I'm on that topic. I bought an "Amazon" branded top a few months back, the fabric was so cheap, I may as well could have bought the exact same item from Walmart.

You're bringing up more evidence whereas paddy's example was on price alone. We can argue that $3 is super obvious and it is, but what if it were $40? What if it were the same price as your bargain basement Graco? What if it were $400?  The retailer is still accountable regardless of manufacture or not. 

 

People think Science Diet and Royal Canin is a good food. It isn't and it's an example of price not being an indicator of quality by itself. 

 

4 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

If the costs go up for amazon then they go up for the smaller retail stores as well. Are you under the impression that they would be safe from these rules as well? 

You would be hurting them more then you would amazon.

How would prices go up? Small stores are far more likely to not go for unknown quality products and also the first to phase those out of inventory if sub-par. Why? Its future is contingent on carrying products that create the least amount of returns and the most purchases. Amazon? They can bide their time because nothing will hit them hard enough to cause significant losses. 

4 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Literally nothing you have said makes any sense. and comes off more of a "I hate the billion dollar company amazon".

If you are a bigger company, you have a larger responsibility to set a standard for exceptionalism. I hold everyone accountable and those who have more should and must be held more accountable not less. 

4 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Amazon sells products other people make. When you buy something thats crap why would you blame amazon? If I go to my local used game store thats mom and pop owned and I buy a game that has a game crashing bug do i talk shit about the mom and pop store for selling it?

The retailer is supposed to be a barrier and responder to crap products. If the system can be gamed, change the system and its checks. People do. You might not. But if the distributor you buy the disc from says "no returns on open products" what can the store do? Nothing. They have to eat it to keep the customer happy or frustrate the customer and take the fallout. 

[FakeCIA]

On 2/19/2020 at 9:58 AM, Phill104 said:

A prime example of that is a friend of mine who lives in the US. Just after the company he worked for went bust (meaning his medical insurance ended) his wife fell seriously ill. He is a very highly qualified man, ex forces and with three degrees. He has spent the last three years caring for his wife and trying to look after his young children. The medical bills have all but sent him bankrupt. He still does some work and claims no social. He is poor, but certainly far from stupid. 

I raise a Shocktop to him.

[ouroesa]

They sell loads of unsafe and harmful items. Just have a look at those 'negative ion' bracelets, bangles, sheets or even clothing - they are just radioactive particles imbedded in the plastic or the material which when worn for extended periods has great potential to cause cancer and other issues.

 

Like any other company, they are in it for the money and no-one should trust any company to keep them safe, your safety doesnt even make their list.

 

Do your own homework, use your own brain and make your own choices for which ultimately you will be responsible and carry the consequences for.

[Brooksie359]

On 2/18/2020 at 8:55 PM, bcredeur97 said:

we're all stupid in some way. We all don't know everything.

Ignorant and stupid are not the same thing.