this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
275 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
66892 readers
6728 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you buy an ACME widget at K-Mart, and it bursts into flames, do you sue ACME, or K-Mart?
Sue acme for damages, and kmart posts notices near the service counter to inform other buyers of the danger. I worked at kmart.
I'm assuming K-Mart also takes them off the shelves.
Oh, right, yes lol. And more notices hung at the empty shelves too.
You sue ACME, but K-mart still has to act on the recall.
Both, actually.
I don’t disagree. But I think they’re trying to make the nuance that Amazon isn’t the one that sold the item (K-Mart in your example). Instead, the third-party was the seller. And I guess that just makes Amazon a facilitator or something that isn’t responsible.
If someone posts csam on this site and the admin willingly ignores it, they can't really argue that they aren't responsible for it.
The "willingly" makes the difference there. That changes it from negligence to intentional, and those are legally distinct.
If Amazon, or another marketplace, isn't aware of the danger of a product sold by a vendor on their platform, it's not clear if Amazon, or the market provider, is responsible. Amazon is arguing that they aren't, but I don't know enough of the law to say if that is a settled question.
One would think that they'd be expected to exercise due diligence. Not to do so would be negligence.
Amazon definately knows the return rates and reasons products get returned. It's absurd that they wouldn't know.
If i let my friend keep stolen property at my house, i am aiding a criminal. Why is Amazon exempt from consequences when someone they take a cut from a sale they allowed someone to make on their website?
If the difference between Amazon-sold product's and third-party-sold products isn't clear (and it isn't) then Amazon should be held responsible. It's like if those AT&T sales people at Costco sold you a phone that caught your face on fire, then Costco is reasonably responsible because they are lending their credibility to a negligent third party. Possible mitigated if they made a good faith effort to distance themselves from third party sellers.
So there is some nuance to it (IMO).