Couple fires sueball at Amazon over faulty solar eclipse-viewing goggles A couple has sued Amazon in the US for allegedly selling them and others faulty solar eclipse glasses that damaged their eyesight. Plaintiffs Corey Payne and Kayla Harris filed a class-action lawsuit in South Carolina's federal court on Tuesday. A total solar eclipse fell on the US on August 21 and retailers including Amazon …
I'd certainly not trust Amazon with my eyesight.
I did, and my glasses worked great. You see, I learned about the eclipse in November 2016 and bought my glasses the following February. I took it upon myself to buy a reputable product long before it sold out.
I sympathize with what has happened to this couple. I do not, however, think that Amazon can be liable for failures of every single product they sell, especially since much of what they sell is listed by third-party resellers through the Amazon Marketplace.
Just for the sake of argument, has an automobile dealer ever been successfully sued for selling a car with manufacturing defects it had no knowledge of?
"I do not, however, think that Amazon can be liable for failures of every single product they sell, especially since much of what they sell is listed by third-party resellers through the Amazon Marketplace."
This is starting to become a bit of a theme, trying to dodge consumer law because it's only a marketplace. Is a department store responsible for what it sells? Yes. In the UK, certainly, you take defects up with the retailer, and then they can sort it out with the manufacturer. I guess the US doesn't have very much in the way of consumer law, but here the person that sold you it is legally responsible, and that person is Amazon. You bought it from Amazon, they can write 'sold by somebody else' on it, but that, I would guess, is bullshit from a legal point of view. Amazon takes my money, the contract is formed with Amazon.
"You're only buying something from Amazon if it says "Sold by Amazon" in the listing."
No.
Amazon is making their brand available to third parties where Amazon is housing product for the third party and is managing the sale/transaction of the product. Amazon will have a certain amount of liability.
I do expect that Amazon will raise this issue, but they will lose.
Think of it this way... would you buy a product from Ma and Pa Kettle if they just put up a website on GoDaddy or Network Solutions? Or did you find the product on Amazon and they had the lowest price?
It gets complicated because Network Solutions and GoDaddy offer site space and handling the electronic payments, and I think some level of fraud protection... But they don't hold stock or manage fulfillment.
The mom and pop shops are not at 'arms length' and IMHO, Amazon will lose if this goes to trial.
Just for the sake of argument, has an automobile dealer ever been successfully sued for selling a car with manufacturing defects it had no knowledge of?
But they do handle recalls.
VW can't say that a faulty car is nothing to do with them because they are VW Retail Ltd and are merely reselling a car built by VW Manufacturing GMBH and anyway they aren't talking to you because you are actually a customer of VW Financial Services SA.
(actually BMW did try this and got a mild wrist slap)
Amazon shouldn't be liable for every single product sold on the site, however their liability should kick in once somebody (and just one person) makes them aware that something is not legit.
For what it is worth: https://www.amazon.fr/gp/aw/d/B0196H3BSA/
It calls itself a JYE DSO138 oscilloscope kit. It's not great, being basically the ADC of an STM32 microcontroller, but for poking around video signals and low frequency stuff, it will suffice. Besides, I wanted to have fun putting it together. Notice all the JYE photos, the serial number, etc. Well what arrived was very obviously a fake. I contacted Amazon, "we take this seriously" and "we checked our stock" and so on. The usual bollocks. I was invited to return my kit and they would send me a proper one. I'll give them credit, they sent the replacement straight away so I could open up both and check that I had all the right components (the kits had incorrect values but of different things so between them I got all the right bits). Why bother? Well you've probably guessed that the replacement kit was equally fake. At this point I forwarded my emails to JYE and told them to add Amazon to the list of companies selling fakes, and then I gave up. I wanted to build the kit, not run around in Kafkaesque circles. As it happens it worked first time for me (perhaps having all the right bits helps? ;-) ) and is what I wanted. Maybe this coming winter I'll try the DSO Shell, now I know I can get an original from Banggood.
Notice that this fake kit is still being sold, and is still paying itself off as a proper JYE kit. Notice also that my review pointing out it's a fake isn't there. I'll need to write it again and this time take a screenshot.
tl;dr: There are fakes on Amazon and when it is brought to their attention, bugger all happens...
I am a happy customer of Amazon's.
However...there are way too many dodgy products being sold. From invalid license key Windows disks to obviously faked book reviews. I've reported the latter and saw no action. Forcing Amazon to exercise more due diligence on products it sells, even via 3rd party, does not seem unreasonable hardship. Especially when they've previously been notified of issues.
A brick and mortar would be liable if they knowingly sold dodgy crap from dodgy sources. No one would say "dumb customer didn't research". Why should Amazon be any different?
Esp when it comes to products with health impact. In the case of your eyes getting screwed up, I can't think of too many things with a worse outcome for people in our line of work, this ain't frivolous. In the specific case of eclipse glasses, I can see where Amazon might struggle to establish the bona fides of sellers of such temporary products though.
"A brick and mortar would be liable if they knowingly sold dodgy crap from dodgy sources. No one would say "dumb customer didn't research". Why should Amazon be any different?"
I can see the point that some are making. If you buy something off a market stall you don't complain to the market site manager. You complain to the market stall holder. If they do nothing, complaining to the market site manager may get them evicted but the manager still can't do much to help you.
In Amazons case, it's not always obvious who you are buying from. Sometimes it's Amazon. Sometimes it's "fulfilled by Amazon", other times, Amazon are just the site manager for a 3rd party "shop". It can be confusing for many and I personally think Amazon have a responsibility as well as their own business reputation management obligation to make things much clearer to the customers.
I sympathize with what has happened to this couple. I do not, however, think that Amazon can be liable for failures of every single product they sell, especially since much of what they sell is listed by third-party resellers through the Amazon Marketplace.
Yes, Amazon can and will be held liable for selling defective products.
There is an amount of liability that Amazon has when they make a marketplace for third party resellers to sell products under the Amazon Brand.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
As a class action, expect Amazon to settle where those affected will get nothing and the lawyers get a large chunk of the settlement.
Amazon are useless at clearing out the obviously fake stuff from their site, even if you report it. For example, how much would you expect to pay for a 512 GB capacity USB stick? Around £150 to £200? Amazon has several vendors selling them for between £10 and £20. The comments are telling:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/512GB-Black-Silver-FLASH-MEMORY/dp/B01CJVSPR2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504189185&sr=8-1&keywords=512gb+usb+memory+stick
Because its mail order if you order from Amazon and Amazon doesn't have a physical plant in your state, you are not charged sales tax and the burden of reporting the sale is on you.
So if you buy your expensive IT hardware from a site in California but you live in NY or IL, you save $$$ because they don't report the sale to your state and they don't collect sales tax so the state doesn't see the loss of tax revenue.
Amazon has since changed their rules and AFAIK, they will now charge sales tax in most if not all states.
I cannot verify if the plaintiffs' eyes are really damaged, but it is certainly possible (hopefully it is only temporary damage, no worse). This is why I (and all others I know doing solar astronomy outreach) always warn people to buy directly from a reputable astronomy store (as I did for the family). Only during totality is it safe to watch the sun without protection. That view can be stunning, however, as can be seen in the diamond ring and corona shots I managed to take with a 400mm telephoto.
I suspect their eyes are permanently damaged unfortunately. Their brain will make up for the damaged parts filling it in as best it can, but they will have destroyed part of their retina and now have blind spots.
Unfortunately due to branding people think anything sold on Amazon is quality, but really it's no better than buying something off a street market or eBay.
"Hey at least buying from a trunk you know it's fake and you might even be able to inspect the goods . I got nice knock off leather jacket that way."
Unless they pull a fast switch and that nice "iPad" you inspected turns into an empty box with a couple of potatoes in it :-)
"I suspect their eyes are permanently damaged unfortunately. "
It depends a bit on the duration and level of exposure. Most people return to normal vision within 1 - 6 months, fortunately. In many cases the damage to the retina appears to be reversible (more-or-less like a sunburn to the retina). Only in fairly rare cases is the damage permanent. As you correctly state, in those cases the brain can help "work around" the damaged bits, but if the damage to the foveal area is severe in both eyes, permanent loss of visual acuity may well result.
Let's hope they fall into the larger, first category
I cant help thinking that you get what you pay for, like those who buy bargain basement broadband services and then complain bitterly that they don't get full speed 24/7.
A colleague of mine says *buy cheap - buy twice" and to some extent he is right, I'm not saying that a high price is always a sign of quality - but many seem to be guided by price rather than doing some real research into products - including a look at any reviews or recommendations from those who already tried the products.
1. Buy ultra cheap sun-glasses from Amazon.
2. When the eclipse happens, hide in the cellar to be absolutely safe.
3. Sue Amazon anyway, PROFIT!
Of course I don't know really if they even have a cellar.
But "someone in America sues someone else" generally isn't news even you are the one suing or being sued.
This will be fun. Did the manufacturers say in their blurb that the shades were 'approved'? If so, it's a bit much to expect a retailer to check the standards of every single product they sell. Should the corner shop run their own tests on a tin of Heinz beans?
And if the manufacturer did say they were approved, why sue Amazon and not the manufacturer? Oh, of course, Amazon are rich, the manufacturer is probably in China.
You go after Amazon because your contract (the purchase) is with them so it is up to them to ensure their products are fit for purpose. The manufacturer for instance will not be able to give you a refund, because you didn't buy it from them, you bought it from Amazon who are the company you deal with.
If I'd paid my money to the Bluewater Metro Centre then YES, I would consider them to be responsible. When Amazon stops taking payment and directs customers directly to a retailer for payment they can be absolved from some of the responsibility. But even then not all, if they are publishing the claims for the product.
Customers can sue Amazon, and Amazon can hunt down the manafacturers to recoup its court losses, but won't get anything from fly-by-night scammers in China.
Reputable companies will refuse to do business with dodgy companies - or distribute dodgy products - that expose them to massive liability, reputational damage, or criminal prosecution. If Amazon routinely turns a blind eye (d'oh) it deserves to be DESTROYED.
Ebay, Newegg, Steam, Apple, Google, and many others have entered the "3rd-party marketplace" business. They seem all too happy to take a hefty cut of 3rd-party sales while doing precious little to earn it. Some of them obscure the fact that the seller is a 3rd party, and most of them fail to identify and remove bad actors in a timely fashion. Time to face the consequences.
If the glasses were brought from a third party vendor are Amazon responsible for any refunds requested?
Your contract was with Amazon, you paid Amazon, you went to Amazon because of their trusted name.
Otherwise every store would have a small print saying that they, Tesco, are merely a marketplace and the real seller is Tesco Trading Bahamas LTD
"Amazon whilst a retailer, is also a market place. If they were sold by a 3rd party on Amazon, then I don't believe they can be held liable - Its akin to buying something from a market stool, then sueing the location owner."
No it isn't, as the money is given to Amazon, who then pay someone else. It's more like a subcontractor, and you don't have to sue the guy the construction company brought in to do the painting, you sue your construction company.
No it isn't, as the money is given to Amazon, who then pay someone else. It's more like a subcontractor, and you don't have to sue the guy the construction company brought in to do the painting, you sue your construction company.
Ah, by that logic I should be suing my credit card company, as they gave the money to Amazon, who then gave it to someone else.
It's not a subcontractor thing at all, especially if it's the third party who physically packages and sends the item.
After all, I can't sue Expedia if my plane trip breaks my leg, I sue the airline providing the flight.
In the case of your CC company - they are ultimately responsible for at least the refund. Obviously it gets murkier with Amazon - but they have listed the goods. If they don’t have validation on quality and it fails and hurts someone then yes, they should be responsible. Otherwise they are taking all of the advantages of size, tax breaks etc.. with none of the responsibility
I can and have asked my credit card company to refund me after the shop I bought a thing from refused to make good.
In accordance with the Consumer Credit Act, the credit card company refunded me with very little hassle.
They may or may not have gone after the original seller, but I was quite happy to leave them to decide on that.
Who took the money and who supplied the goods?
Sure, you could argue that fleabay do the same but they are advertised as a re-seller/second hand goods, Amazon on the other hand are a retailer, in fact they also have physical stores.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
I've been wondering whether this would end up blowing up - certainly seems like a lot in the nerd community have been chomping popcorn in anticipation of Amazon finally getting its comeuppance where fake products are concerned. I've heard numbers like 150k fake glasses sales being bandied around, which isn't a small number where potential sueballs involving physical bodily-harm comes in to play.
I stuck to telling folks that if they couldn't be absolutely certain where the glasses came from to use a goddamn pinhole camera.
Oddly, had about 4 of the neighbours ask how to do this .. ended up with about 12 variations on the idea, and several of us compared results.
Hopefully this is just Darwinism in action, not greedy twats.
A cousin of mine managed to damage his eyesight because he didn't know how to use a pin-hole camera; he looked at the eclipse through the hole and scarred the fovea in one eye. He now has a permanent squint as he uses averted vision to compensate for the blind spot.
He was lucky; the woman in front of him in the queue(!) was told that the damage to her eye was so severe that she would lose what little vision she had left as her brain would adapt and ignore the "bad" eye.
"Did the government not spend millions of pounds on an advertising campaign telling people "DON'T LOOK AT THE SUN!" ??"
Sure, but then Mr Trump showed them how it should be done anyway:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-41003929/solar-eclipse-2017-donald-trump-looks-directly-at-the-sun
We ordered a 12-pack of American Optics sun glasses (heh) from Amazon. They were in fact supposed to be Space.com branded with Bill Nye himself on them. hey, if you're gonna geek out, go to the max.
The seller actually sent us the crap shades. The only thing printed on them was MADE IN CHINA and a disclaimer about how they were not responsible for any damage. My point is that I carefully selected the correct product, but was sent a dangerous substitute. Eternal vigilance is required...
But anyone that bought a set of suspect glasses were emailed rather swiftly, the product was recalled (told to destroy) and all users reimbursed.
You cannot expect Amazon to call each and every person detailing this.
The recall was in the news around the world, all over facebook and twitter.
If you didn't see the media advice on this then the onus is on you.
"But anyone that bought a set of suspect glasses were emailed rather swiftly, the product was recalled (told to destroy) and all users reimbursed.
You cannot expect Amazon to call each and every person detailing this.
The recall was in the news around the world, all over facebook and twitter.
If you didn't see the media advice on this then the onus is on you."
Oh, don't talk stupid. You saw that some glasses were being recalled. You had glasses, therefore you should have known they were rubbish? That's ridiculous. I have a car, some cars were recalled, therefore if anything is wrong with mine I am to blame? If Amazon e-mailed them to recall it and they used it afterwards then sure, but they said they weren't notified.
Wow - your car analogy makes no sense - if a car is recalled and you don't check then YES you are the arse.
Amazon informed its customers - they did the right thing.
I live in the UK and I was well aware of the issue with eclipse glasses purchased on Amazon.
"Argghhh my eyes! I'm so blind I can barely see where to sign this document multiple times with which my lawyer is suing Amazon ..."
150K sold, how many returned? How many simply not used because of the extensive advertising campaign about fake glasses sourced from Amazon? How many of the 'fakes' were simply non-compliant with the new ISO standard (such as Baader Solar film used for solar scope filters which lets through a bit too much uv for the naked eye standard) but would actually cause little or no harm if used for direct viewing over a period of a few minutes?
Seems to me that the actual number of 'faulty' devices out there and actually used was probably very few ... How much damage was actually done could be an interesting discussion for the medical examiners in court.
I had purchased a solar filter for my telescope which uses a metalized mylar film a year ago.
A few weeks ago, I got a notice from Amazon:
"Amazon has not received confirmation from the supplier of your order that they sourced the item from a recommended manufacturer. We recommend that you DO NOT use this product to view the sun or the eclipse." And they refunded me my purchase price, no need to return the filter.
I checked the manufacturer of the film's website, which assured me that it was fine for telescope/camera solar use. I got a $60 filter for free!
I used them anyway, because I've seen partial eclipses before so I was only in it for the full eclipse. I put the glasses on and looked at the sun for a second or two maybe a half dozen times total. Took them off and looked at the full eclipse for two minutes. When the sun started peeking out again we went straight to the car and started for home so we could beat the inevitable traffic jam.
I didn't experience any symptoms. Well, a mild headache but that was probably due to the seven total hours of driving there and back in a single day. I wouldn't care if I was guaranteed to have proper eclipse glasses, I'd never stare at the sun through them for minutes at a time like I saw some people doing. What if your reputable brand had a manufacturing defect?
One thing I'm curious about, how would they even know they have a central blind spot? Doesn't the brain make up for it, similar to how it makes up for the blind spot we all have in each eye where the topic nerve connects to the retina in our most-definitely-not-intelligently-designed eyes? I assume they went to an eye doctor for a diagnosis - but if so wouldn't the doctor have told them to wait a few months and see if the damage reverses? They pulled the trigger on this lawsuit awfully quickly, the eclipse was only 10 days ago!
My understanding is, if you stare at the sun for more than 1-2 seconds - which an eclipse will tempt you to do! - the light will cause heating and chemical changes in your retina, and the damage occurs over a period of hours or days. A glimpse will cause you to see spots temporarily. Staring for several seconds will have the same effect, but the cells will die in a matter of hours leaving you with long-term damage.
And according to the internet... It's called solar retinopathy. It heals within a few months if you're lucky. Symptoms are obvious: holes in your vision (apparently the brain only compensates for the foveal blind spot). Eye doctors can see major damage with diagnostic imaging, in which case you can't say the patients are making it up.
"Well, a mild headache but that was probably due to the seven total hours of driving there and back in a single day."
If you had the aircon on all the way there and back, that might just be a slight dehydration, especially if you are not used to driving long distances regularly.
While Amazon et al are very enticing, especially for harder to find or bulk items, I prefer to stick with brick and mortar stores, or at least well established online stores like NewEgg (buying directly from newegg, not their other vendors) for most things.
Yes, it costs more. But I also have someone to contact if something goes wrong. There is someone on the other end with a reputation to uphold, for which it's in their best interest to do a good job. They can't just close up shop and reopen under a new name when they piss off too many people. Or at least, it's a whole lot harder.
I just got some welding goggles from Harbor Freight (a discount tool suppler). These were well adequate for the job even though they were only #10 rather than the #14 shade recommended. They worked better than the official cardboard glasses.
The thing is, I'm not going to be standing outside for three hours looking at the sun. I'll go outside, look at the sun with a bit missing, then go about my business for a quarter hour or so. Then I'll go back out and have another look. Welding goggles are designed for people who not only have to focus on what they're doing but do so for much of a work day. Its not easy trying to explain what 'shade number' means, much less explain about cumulative exposure so you just don't try. (Don't have glasses? Use a piece of paper with a hole in it....)
(I blame the (lack of) educational system myself, but then I'm probably an elitist or something like that.)
We purchased eclipse-viewing glasses from Amazon. I would say more than half of of the glasses were not certified for viewing the sun, yet their name suggested they were. Blatant false advertising to say the least. However, if you simply click on the product comments, all the false eclipse-viewing glasses were being called out. And when we selected the ones we wanted, a simple google search confirmed they were safe for sun viewing.
I hate to say it, but this is a self-inflicted act of stupidity. I have no sympathy here. Stare at the sun, for an extended period of time? Really? Cheap pair of glasses or expensive, it's a dumb idea either way.
And that's even assuming they actually did, and that they actually suffered any harm whatsoever, and that said harm is not imagined or psychosomatic, which is the first thing that needs proving: the harm. Not to justify the litigation, but simply to know if, in theory, I should feel guilty about laughing at them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
