DC suing Amazon because Amazon avoids crime-ridden area of DC.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
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. |
Anonymous
|
Funny how he’s mad with Amazon for not delivering to these areas, but he’s not mad at the criminals and the crime that are making these areas undeliverable.
I might be mistaken, but were there some food deliveries that stop delivering to these areas too? It may have been Dominos or Uber eats. I don’t remember exactly but this is not the first company that stopped servicing certain areas. |
Anonymous
Maybe he'll get mad enough to do something to make those parts of the city safe. |
Anonymous
| What's the deal with the AG always filing suit against tech giants? Maybe he should focus on issues a little closer to home that people in DC actually care about. |
Anonymous
| Way to miss the point. Amazon was still charging people for Prime membership, without offering or committing to Prime delivery. That's the illegal part. They ship to that area using UPS, which is slower than the Amazon small van and contractor delivery. You cannot charge people for a service and then not fulfill the service requirements. |
Anonymous
DC is suing Amazon because they're charging some people full membership but not providing full services. I don't know why you would think that's ok. |
Anonymous
|
I love Amazon.
I agree that Amazon should have warned customers that they would not be able to access the Prime perk of rapid delivery times, even if they paid for Prime membership. It's a basic failure to provide a paid service. More importantly, it's also a missed branding opportunity and a PR failure. Amazon should have understood that if it makes a public announcement about safety and crime in DC, it sides with users, who are the primary victims of said crime, and then it comes across as the good guy trying to draw attention to a public safety issue. The defender of the people: look, we're Amazon and we can't deliver to this area because the government has not done enough to ensure people's safety! Amazon on the side of the residents! Instead, now it's been shown to be a sneaky exploitative operation in those locations. So I welcome the lawsuit. |
Anonymous
| I'm happy that amazon cares about the safety of its drivers. Plenty of places have prime without first party delivery - it's in the TOC |
Anonymous
|
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. |
Anonymous
Why does the DC AG think that people should not read the terms and conditions before? |
Anonymous
READ THE ARTICLE. AG is suing because Amazon should have warned residents that paying extra for Prime was not going to get them Prime services, due to the decision to only use third party deliveries in that area. No one is saying that Amazon should have been forced to use its own drivers in a risky area. It is entirely fair to sue someone when they do not provide the service they said they would. Reading comprehension. Nuance. People who don't pause to reflect for one second on the news are the reason why our nation is so divided. You take everything out of context and run with it. |
Anonymous
Why would you think the terms and conditions (which everybody knows nobody reads) override local law? |
Anonymous
Actually, nothing like that. This is basically a false advertising case against Amazon. Dc is not arguing that Amazon has to do business with crime infested places; just that it can’t promise something to those areas but then not do it. |
Anonymous
Amazon's going to lose because it's chat and twitter representatives both have no knowledge of company policy and are agents of the company. They were caught lying to customers about corporate policy regarding deliveries |
Anonymous
|
"Schwalb takes no issue with Amazon diverting delivery drivers from perceived high-crime areas but insists that Amazon owes its subscribers in those regions an explanation for delivery delays and perhaps even cheaper subscription prices. He has asked for an injunction on Amazon's allegedly deceptive advertising urging users to pay for fast shipments they rarely, if ever, receive. He also wants Amazon to refund subscribers seemingly cheated out of full subscription benefits and has asked a jury to award civil damages to deter future unfair business practices. Amazon could owe millions in a loss, with each delivery to almost 50,000 users since mid-2022 considered a potential violation."
He's not suing over the redlining, he's suing over the lying |