DC suing Amazon because Amazon avoids crime-ridden area of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're not happy with Amazon, you could just cancel your subscription. Doesn't the AG have better things to do?

Or Amazon could stop selling a service to people and then not providing that service. I don't understand why anybody would defend Amazon for doing this (unless Amazon were paying them, for example Amazon's lawyers).

We have an epidemic of teenagers committing very serious crimes and it's the AG's job to prosecute them and instead the AG is always spending its time filing frivolous lawsuits against Amazon and Facebook and Google.

If you listed the 10,000 biggest problems facing Washington D.C., tardy package deliveries from Amazon would not be on anyone's list.

Sounds like you should run for Attorney General. If the voters elect you, then you can decide what is and is not a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're not happy with Amazon, you could just cancel your subscription. Doesn't the AG have better things to do?

Or Amazon could stop selling a service to people and then not providing that service. I don't understand why anybody would defend Amazon for doing this (unless Amazon were paying them, for example Amazon's lawyers).

We have an epidemic of teenagers committing very serious crimes and it's the AG's job to prosecute them and instead the AG is always spending its time filing frivolous lawsuits against Amazon and Facebook and Google.

If you listed the 10,000 biggest problems facing Washington D.C., tardy package deliveries from Amazon would not be on anyone's list.

Sounds like you should run for Attorney General. If the voters elect you, then you can decide what is and is not a priority.

Maybe next the AG could sue Jiffy Lube on behalf of people who went there only to find that their oil change took longer than a jiffy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That part of the city in issue here, is the one with the least parking tickets issued. Why?

Because the parking ticket enforcers are terrified of getting shot or assaulted when issuing parking tickets there.

The woke DC AG should dedicated his time to fix crime first in the part of town than harass private companies trying to make miracles to deliver a service there because of the crime.

Two reasons: Safety, as you said. The second is politics. The mayor doesn’t want to upset her base by writing too many tickets in these and other wards where her base voters live. She pays no political price by flooding the zone in Wards 2 and 3 with ticket writers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're not happy with Amazon, you could just cancel your subscription. Doesn't the AG have better things to do?

Or Amazon could stop selling a service to people and then not providing that service. I don't understand why anybody would defend Amazon for doing this (unless Amazon were paying them, for example Amazon's lawyers).

+1 There's some serious shilling happening on this thread. Amazon has shown its workplace safety numbers are far worse than its competitors. It's not providing services in these zip codes for another reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're not happy with Amazon, you could just cancel your subscription. Doesn't the AG have better things to do?

Or Amazon could stop selling a service to people and then not providing that service. I don't understand why anybody would defend Amazon for doing this (unless Amazon were paying them, for example Amazon's lawyers).

+1 There's some serious shilling happening on this thread. Amazon has shown its workplace safety numbers are far worse than its competitors. It's not providing services in these zip codes for another reason.

Oh god how nefarious of Amazon that in addition to protecting the safety of drivers they also don’t want their trucks jacked. How deep does the conspiracy go?

[Anonymous]

Well if they mayor made DC safer Amazon would want to deliver in those areas. But she lets the youth carjack and run wild in the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like DC suing carmakers because people in DC steal too many cars.

I would like to hear from the DC AG why Amazon is obligated to put the lives of their workers and their property at risk because the DC AG cannot control the juvenile crime epidemic in the city.

No, wrong.

This would be like DC suing carmakers because they’re selling cars to people in DC and refusing to deliver those cars citing safety.

Amazon can choose to provide service to any area they want — and refuse service to any area. What Amazon can’t do is charge people for a product and refuse to deliver because it’s “too dangerous.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're not happy with Amazon, you could just cancel your subscription. Doesn't the AG have better things to do?

Or Amazon could stop selling a service to people and then not providing that service. I don't understand why anybody would defend Amazon for doing this (unless Amazon were paying them, for example Amazon's lawyers).

+1 There's some serious shilling happening on this thread. Amazon has shown its workplace safety numbers are far worse than its competitors. It's not providing services in these zip codes for another reason.

Oh god how nefarious of Amazon that in addition to protecting the safety of drivers they also don’t want their trucks jacked. How deep does the conspiracy go?

How nefarious of Amazon that they tell people "If you buy Prime, we will provide these services" but then they don't provide some of those services, yes that actually is nefarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're not happy with Amazon, you could just cancel your subscription. Doesn't the AG have better things to do?

Or Amazon could stop selling a service to people and then not providing that service. I don't understand why anybody would defend Amazon for doing this (unless Amazon were paying them, for example Amazon's lawyers).

+1 There's some serious shilling happening on this thread. Amazon has shown its workplace safety numbers are far worse than its competitors. It's not providing services in these zip codes for another reason.

Oh god how nefarious of Amazon that in addition to protecting the safety of drivers they also don’t want their trucks jacked. How deep does the conspiracy go?

How nefarious of Amazon that they tell people "If you buy Prime, we will provide these services" but then they don't provide some of those services, yes that actually is nefarious.

Oh grow up. If you dont like Amazon, you can just cancel your subscription.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/amazon-secretly-slowed-deliveries-deceived-anyone-who-complained-lawsuit-says/

Amazon cancelled first-party delivery management because parts of DC are too dangerous.

DC Attorney big mad.

DC AG about to learn what happens when he takes on a real deep pocket organization that’s litigious about protecting their rights.

DC AG has sued Facebook, Google, the Trump organization, and the NRA in recent years.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people, no matter how clearly it’s shown in statistics or data, will close their eyes to the reality of crime in Wards 7 and 8. The mental gymnastics are too hard and the moral absolutism runs too deep in their virtuous bodies that they can’t process why Amazon drivers are scared to deliver packages. Biologically, humans are preprogrammed to route for the underdogs, so this will never change. Either way, maybe they should sign up to deliver packages and see how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/amazon-secretly-slowed-deliveries-deceived-anyone-who-complained-lawsuit-says/

Amazon cancelled first-party delivery management because parts of DC are too dangerous.

DC Attorney big mad.

DC AG about to learn what happens when he takes on a real deep pocket organization that’s litigious about protecting their rights.

DC AG has sued Facebook, Google, the Trump organization, and the NRA in recent years.

It’s rare for DC to sue anyone like this on their own. They usually join other states in these lawsuits. I don’t really see Schwalb having a lot of success against Amazon. His model seems to be that he hires a law firm - usually one he has a connection to - under contract to litigate on behalf of DC and then the pays the legal fees out of the settlements and keeps the remainder for his own slush fund. You know he’s running for mayor because he has his own “walking around money slush fund” aka violence interrupter program that he administers and this is how he tries to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/amazon-secretly-slowed-deliveries-deceived-anyone-who-complained-lawsuit-says/

Amazon cancelled first-party delivery management because parts of DC are too dangerous.

DC Attorney big mad.

DC AG about to learn what happens when he takes on a real deep pocket organization that’s litigious about protecting their rights.

DC AG has sued Facebook, Google, the Trump organization, and the NRA in recent years.

It’s rare for DC to sue anyone like this on their own. They usually join other states in these lawsuits. I don’t really see Schwalb having a lot of success against Amazon. His model seems to be that he hires a law firm - usually one he has a connection to - under contract to litigate on behalf of DC and then the pays the legal fees out of the settlements and keeps the remainder for his own slush fund. You know he’s running for mayor because he has his own “walking around money slush fund” aka violence interrupter program that he administers and this is how he tries to pay for it.

This one is probably a slam dunk because amazon representatives on twitter and chat lied to customers in response to inquiries. Absent the lies, I think he loses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/amazon-secretly-slowed-deliveries-deceived-anyone-who-complained-lawsuit-says/

Amazon cancelled first-party delivery management because parts of DC are too dangerous.

DC Attorney big mad.

DC AG about to learn what happens when he takes on a real deep pocket organization that’s litigious about protecting their rights.

DC AG has sued Facebook, Google, the Trump organization, and the NRA in recent years.

It’s rare for DC to sue anyone like this on their own. They usually join other states in these lawsuits. I don’t really see Schwalb having a lot of success against Amazon. His model seems to be that he hires a law firm - usually one he has a connection to - under contract to litigate on behalf of DC and then the pays the legal fees out of the settlements and keeps the remainder for his own slush fund. You know he’s running for mayor because he has his own “walking around money slush fund” aka violence interrupter program that he administers and this is how he tries to pay for it.

This one is probably a slam dunk because amazon representatives on twitter and chat lied to customers in response to inquiries. Absent the lies, I think he loses

I don’t think your opinion matters much in terms of the disposition of this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/amazon-secretly-slowed-deliveries-deceived-anyone-who-complained-lawsuit-says/

Amazon cancelled first-party delivery management because parts of DC are too dangerous.

DC Attorney big mad.

DC AG about to learn what happens when he takes on a real deep pocket organization that’s litigious about protecting their rights.

DC AG has sued Facebook, Google, the Trump organization, and the NRA in recent years.

It’s rare for DC to sue anyone like this on their own. They usually join other states in these lawsuits. I don’t really see Schwalb having a lot of success against Amazon. His model seems to be that he hires a law firm - usually one he has a connection to - under contract to litigate on behalf of DC and then the pays the legal fees out of the settlements and keeps the remainder for his own slush fund. You know he’s running for mayor because he has his own “walking around money slush fund” aka violence interrupter program that he administers and this is how he tries to pay for it.

This one is probably a slam dunk because amazon representatives on twitter and chat lied to customers in response to inquiries. Absent the lies, I think he loses

I don’t think your opinion matters much in terms of the disposition of this case.

Cool, does yours matter? If no one knows anything, why even read the thread?