this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
767 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59675 readers
3806 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Amazon failed to adequately alert more than 300,000 customers to serious risks—including death and electrocution—that US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) testing found with more than 400,000 products that third parties sold on its platform.

The CPSC unanimously voted to hold Amazon legally responsible for third-party sellers' defective products. Now, Amazon must make a CPSC-approved plan to properly recall the dangerous products—including highly flammable children's pajamas, faulty carbon monoxide detectors, and unsafe hair dryers that could cause electrocution—which the CPSC fears may still be widely used in homes across America.

While Amazon scrambles to devise a plan, the CPSC summarized the ongoing risks to consumers:

If the [products] remain in consumers’ possession, children will continue to wear sleepwear garments that could ignite and result in injury or death; consumers will unwittingly rely on defective [carbon monoxide] detectors that will never alert them to the presence of deadly carbon monoxide in their homes; and consumers will use the hair dryers they purchased, which lack immersion protection, in the bathroom near water, leaving them vulnerable to electrocution.

Instead of recalling the products, which were sold between 2018 and 2021, Amazon sent messages to customers that the CPSC said "downplayed the severity" of hazards.

In these messages—"despite conclusive testing that the products were hazardous" by the CPSC—Amazon only warned customers that the products "may fail" to meet federal safety standards and only "potentially" posed risks of "burn injuries to children," "electric shock," or "exposure to potentially dangerous levels of carbon monoxide."

Typically, a distributor would be required to specifically use the word "recall" in the subject line of these kinds of messages, but Amazon dodged using that language entirely. Instead, Amazon opted to use much less alarming subject lines that said, "Attention: Important safety notice about your past Amazon order" or "Important safety notice about your past Amazon order."

Amazon then left it up to customers to destroy products and explicitly discouraged them from making returns. The e-commerce giant also gave every affected customer a gift card without requiring proof of destruction or adequately providing public notice or informing customers of actual hazards, as can be required by law to ensure public safety.

Further, Amazon's messages did not include photos of the defective products, as required by law, and provided no way for customers to respond. The commission found that Amazon "made no effort" to track how many items were destroyed or even do the minimum of monitoring the "number of messages that were opened."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 66 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Where is the list of products? It's gotta be online somewhere.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 79 points 3 months ago (1 children)

See that is the real issue here. They did not recall them. They did not list them. They did not it seems stop selling them.

The suit seems to be about the fact they did not do what they where supposed to. This is the time when we get to see if our governments have any ability to govern anymore.

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/recall/lawsuits/abc/142%20-%20In%20the%20Matter%20of%20Amazon.com%20Inc.%20Decision%20and%20Order.pdf

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago

That's insane. I have some old Amazon basics surge protectors... I guess I need to assume they are a risk.

I stopped buying this sort of thing a decade or so ago, but I don't see a date here...

I guess none of us should trust any of their products if they aren't going to tell us which ones are dangerous.

[–] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

i came in here to find out the same thing.