Amazon is sued for failing to properly recall unsafe products

As of 2019, Amazon has sold nearly 400,000 hairdryers that might shock someone if they fell into a puddle, 24,000 carbon monoxide detectors that didn’t actually detect carbon monoxide, and a unspecified number of “children’s sleepwear” that did not. meet flammability requirements, according to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Now the US security regulator wants to force Amazon to recall these products. Last week, he sued the company in a case that may be the latest to hold Amazon responsible for products offered by its third-party sellers. But here’s the thing: Amazon has already recalled these specific products. They are no longer for sale.

Amazon says, and the CPSC acknowledges, that the giant retailer has already stopped selling these products, has already notified its buyers, and has already issued refunds.

Here is the initial statement provided by Amazon to The edge:

Customer safety is a top priority and we take prompt action to protect customers when we are aware of a security concern. As the CPSC’s own complaint acknowledges, for the vast majority of the products in question, Amazon has already immediately removed the products from our store, informed customers of potential safety issues, advised customers to destroy the products, and provided customers with a full refund. For the few remaining products in question, the CPSC did not provide Amazon with enough information for us to take action and despite our requests, the CPSC went unanswered. Amazon has a state-of-the-art recall program and we have further offered to expand our capabilities to handle recalls of all products sold in our store, whether those products have been sold or fulfilled by Amazon or third party sellers. We don’t know why the CPSC rejected this offer or why it filed a complaint seeking to force us to take action almost entirely identical to what we have already taken.

What is really going on here? We’ve spoken to CPSC, and they claim there are some big issues with the way Amazon is handling the issue. Mainly, that the CPSC should take Amazon’s word that the recall is being processed and that these dangerous products are in fact being destroyed.

In the statement, Amazon says that the CPSC rejected its offer to work together on this issue, and it appears to be true because Amazon’s offer was a “proposed recall commitment” that would allow online marketplaces to manage the reminders themselves. Here is the proposal that Amazon sent to the CPSC on May 6:

Originally, the CPSC suggested to us that the undertaking was not a legally binding agreement either – perhaps Amazon should be believed that it would provide, for example, regular reports on the progress of a project. reminder so that the CPSC can follow up. If Amazon did not properly explain to customers how to destroy unsafe products or how to return them for free, the CPSC may not be able to take action.

Amazon suggests that’s not true, however. “Amazon proposed an agreement that would be legally binding, and that was developed and agreed upon with CPSC staff,” he said. The edge. The retailer says he has worked ‘hand in hand’ with the CPSC throughout this process, used a recall template that we ‘have discussed and agreed to with CPSC staff’ and suggests that he does not understand why the CPSC has changed its mind.

Neither Amazon nor the CPSC would let The edge see a copy of their proposed deal, but Amazon gave us copies of the recall notices it sent to customers. An example:

Amazon says there’s a simple reason you don’t see any mention of returns: “Amazon didn’t require the return of these products before issuing a refund because the CPSC didn’t ask us to do so and because such a step is unusual for recalls of these types of products. “said Amazon The edge.

However, there are more important things at stake than the recalls of these specific products. The CPSC’s move is also to find the power to impose recalls on large marketplaces of online sellers like Amazon to begin with, marketplaces that did not exist at the time the laws were written – in this way, it would not always need to rely on Amazon being willing to comply. CPSC Acting President Robert Adler alludes to this difficulty in a statement (PDF) released alongside the complaint: “For every product that the CPSC determines a recall is necessary, lengthy negotiation must first. take place on the threshold question of whether this sales platform is still subject to our laws.

The CPSC claims that its current status gives it legal authority over importers, distributors and manufacturers, and it now argues that the way Amazon manages its “Fulfilled by Amazon” products clearly makes it a distributor under of the law.

“We’re looking to have Amazon accountable for the ‘made by Amazon’ products on their site; Amazon does not consider itself legally responsible for these products. We affirm that Amazon has legal responsibility as a distributor for the safety of these products, ”CPSC said. The edge, adding “We look forward to working with them on the details of a recall.”

Amazon, of course, doesn’t want to be classified as a distributor:

We disagree with the CPSC’s assertion that we are a distributor under this law, and our view was reinforced by President Adler’s statement. However, more importantly, Amazon has always believed that we have an obligation to our customers to provide the safest shopping experience. That’s why Amazon messaged customers and covered the cost of refunds when sales partners failed to contact regulators about the recalls. We did this for the products mentioned in the lawsuit and worked with CPSC staff to finalize an agreement that would set a new standard for third-party product recalls. We don’t know why the CPSC Commission rejected this offer, especially since its staff worked hand in hand with us to develop it.

If this continues in court, the CPSC says it could take many years to conclude, with previous forced recalls taking an average of five to seven years. The first step is to take the case to an administrative law judge (which the CPSC says it does not have), after which Amazon may have several options to appeal, first to the CPSC itself, then in federal courts.

You can read CPSC’s full complaint against Amazon below.