Hacker News Reader

If the store is liable, the consumer benefits in multiple ways:

- They know who to talk to in case a product is defective. In most cases, it's easy to find out who was the original manufacturer (e.g. when their name is written on the box), but in other cases it can be quite difficult to find out who to go to if your product breaks.

- If the store is liable, it is in their best interest to not sell you products that are likely to break quickly. Alternatively, if the store still decides to sell those products, they will want to take the risk of breakage into account when setting the price. That means the price of the product is a more accurate representation of the value of the product.

> Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility?

Because the customer has a relationship with the retailer, not the manufacturer.

If this doesn't get overturned, I would expect Amazon to just require anybody who sells through Amazon or supplies Amazon with products to provide indemnification of some sort. Either that or they would just buy insurance to cover payouts due to defective products and their margin would shrink by some tiny amount.

If a store put a random baby formula from a sketchy Chinese factory on its shelves and it made babies sick, they're going to get demolished by the FDA. "Hey I'm just a retailer" is not at all a defense.

As a customer I can't be expected to know about the intricacies of the supply chain for every product I use, so I establish a relationship with one entity - the retailer.

> so I establish a relationship with one entity - the retailer.

My thinking is precisely opposite.

Because I can't be expected to know about the intracacies of the supply chain, I consider the quality to be determined by one entity - the manufacturer.

I trust Crest toothpaste over some no-name generic toothpaste that might be made by anyone precisely because it's Crest. I can buy it from the immigrant family which owns the corner bodega, and I don't have the slightest idea where they buy it from... but it's still Crest.

In my mind, my primary relationship is with the brand. The retailer I couldn't care less about.

Also, I don't want my health to be determined by where the store sources its stuff from. I want that to be determined at at a governmental level, by the FDA. Sketchy formula shouldn't be allowed in the country in the first place. It's the importer who should be held criminally liable. Again, what does a corner bodega owner know about determining the safety of consumer products? It's the government's job to set safety standards, not store owners making their own uninformed decisions.

IMO the supply chain and knowing your supplier plays an extremely important role in making sure products are legitimate and conform to all regulations. A big problem with Amazon is that you can end up with counterfeit products or products that have fake safety certifications stamped on them and you'll never nail down the culprits that orchestrated it. It'll be a transient company in China that's gone by the time anyone knows what happened.

So yeah, you can trust the brand, but if a retailer has no incentive to keep counterfeit products off the shelf there's no guarantee your toothpaste is actually being supplied by Crest. You aren't going to have much luck suing a counterfeiter in a foreign country, especially since they'll be set up to disappear.

It's important for everyone in the supply chain to be liable and making the retailer liable to the consumer is the easiest way to do that. If a supplier sells a retailer a fake unsafe product and the retailer gets sued because of it, the retailer can sue the supplier. If the supplier is buying from a respectable manufacturer they can sue the manufacturer (or settle with them).

As soon as you make the consumer go directly to the supplier or manufacturer, there's a huge incentive to set up a supply chain like Amazon has where a ton of low quality garbage gets foisted onto consumers and there's no recourse because all of the liable parties are in foreign countries.

Thanks for explaining, but I still don't see the logic here.

First of all, how is a retailer supposed to vet their suppliers? They don't have the expertise or time to audit the supplier's own supply chains.

Second, if the (non-counterfeit) manufacturer puts out a shoddy batch, it doesn't matter which suppliers it goes through. Why should the store be responsible for the shoddy product when it could have come through any supply chain?

And third, I don't think lawsuits work the way you think they do. If you get sued, you can't just sue your supplier to pass it on and be done with it. You still lose $$$$ hiring lawyers.

You're seizing on the idea of counterfeit products, but I'm not talking about counterfeits. I've never seen or heard of counterfeit toothpaste in my life. And I'm not talking about foreign producers either -- if you import it, then you're liable.

I'm talking about a store purchasing merchandise from a domestic supplier that is genuine. If that merchandise produces injuries, why on earth would the store be liable, instead of the manufacturer? It makes zero sense.

I guess the way I see it is that most manufacturers are foreign rather than domestic, so that leaves you with making the importer liable for bad products. I think it’s a lot easier to implement that part of the supply chain with a bunch of zero asset, disposable companies, so it doesn’t really leave anyone that’s going to actually assume liability.

The retailer relies on the value of their brand and often have significant domestic assets. So by making the retailer liable you’re pinning down someone who can’t just fold their company and walk away.

And I don’t agree the retailer isn’t capable of vetting their supply chain. I’ll agree it’s not easy, but they’re in the best position to do it because they have a lot of leverage over their direct suppliers.

Better alignment of incentives. The retailer (especially for a huge company like Amazon) has more resources to pursue manufacturers with defective products, they have more information about their supply chain which is useful for issues with international manufacturers, and putting the onus on the retailer encourages the retailer to not allow shoddy or counterfeit products into their marketplace.

In many cases, Amazon is the importer.

For stuff that’s shipped straight from China to the consumer, whom do you propose should be liable when a product catches fire? I think that’s the situation in this case - the court has ruled that Amazon is responsible.

Effectively Amazon is becoming the seller and the wholesaler, and keeping 75% of what a wholesaler used to make, While undercutting retailers, right?

In germany, the retailer is responsible for handling defects and warranty. This makes it easier for the customer, as they can just go the store they bought it from and handle it in person or send it to amazon and they have to deal with the manufacturer.

This isn't about safety testing, this simply means that a mom&pop store needs to either trust the manufacturer, buy insurance for defective products or contract with the manufacturer so that they can just send back defective items in bulk at non of their cost. Up to them.

In germany this works perfectly fine with mom&pop stores.

If Amazon chooses to let counterfeiters etc sell on their website, why should they not be held accountable for that? Maybe they will finally show interest in what the heck they are showcasing on their own platform.