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

[Anonymous]

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.

I thought Bezos and Trump made up? The DOJ will fix this after Jan 20th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Why does the DC AG think that people should not read the terms and conditions before?

Why would you think the terms and conditions (which everybody knows nobody reads) override local law?

Please cite the DC law that requires Amazon to deliver anything, anywhere.

You can read the complaint your own self, here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/DC-v-Amazon-Complaint-12-4-24.pdf

The main law at issue is the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), D.C. Code § 28-3909

From the complaint:

Businesses operating in the District
have every right to take measures to protect their employees and contractors. But when those
decisions materially diminish the quality of the goods and services that District consumers are
paying for—and that businesses have assured District consumers they will receive—businesses
cannot implement those decisions in secret. On the contrary, businesses have an obligation to be
transparent about those decisions so that District consumers can make informed purchasing
decisions and can have confidence that they receive the full benefit of what they have paid for.

The bolded is the DC AGs interpretation of the law and facts. It doesn’t represent the actual law and facts.

The service is prime - i.e free fast delivery, so:

§ 28–3904. Unfair or deceptive trade practices.
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to engage in an unfair or deceptive trade practice, whether or not any consumer is in fact misled, deceived, or damaged thereby, including to:
...

(f) fail to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead;

(f-1) use innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact, which has a tendency to mislead;"

If your response to customer inquiries is to say nothing has changed, then it seems like a violation

[Anonymous]

Amazon should just eliminate 2-day Prime for everywhere in the city. You can still get free shipping - but no more 2-day guarantee for anyone. Courtesy of the AG.

[Anonymous]

The solution is to make the SE area have amazon prime 4 day delivery guarantee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazon should just eliminate 2-day Prime for everywhere in the city. You can still get free shipping - but no more 2-day guarantee for anyone. Courtesy of the AG.

Walmart would thank them.

[Anonymous]

Alex, I’ll take “titles of threads when posters are idiots and have no idea what they’re talking about for 100“

That is not what the Attorney General is suing Amazon over. Not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Why does the DC AG think that people should not read the terms and conditions before?

Why would you think the terms and conditions (which everybody knows nobody reads) override local law?

Please cite the DC law that requires Amazon to deliver anything, anywhere.

You can read the complaint your own self, here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/DC-v-Amazon-Complaint-12-4-24.pdf

The main law at issue is the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), D.C. Code § 28-3909

From the complaint:

Businesses operating in the District
have every right to take measures to protect their employees and contractors. But when those
decisions materially diminish the quality of the goods and services that District consumers are
paying for—and that businesses have assured District consumers they will receive—businesses
cannot implement those decisions in secret. On the contrary, businesses have an obligation to be
transparent about those decisions so that District consumers can make informed purchasing
decisions and can have confidence that they receive the full benefit of what they have paid for.

The bolded is the DC AGs interpretation of the law and facts. It doesn’t represent the actual law and facts.

The service is prime - i.e free fast delivery, so:

§ 28–3904. Unfair or deceptive trade practices.
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to engage in an unfair or deceptive trade practice, whether or not any consumer is in fact misled, deceived, or damaged thereby, including to:
...

(f) fail to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead;

(f-1) use innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact, which has a tendency to mislead;"

If your response to customer inquiries is to say nothing has changed, then it seems like a violation

This is why lawyers and courts exist. The DC AG has stated what they believe to be the law and facts. I am sure that Amazon has a different interpretation of the law and facts. Both will get the opportunity to present their case. You have only heard from one side and you clearly don’t have a legal background because you just breezed through a lot of terms that require definition and analysis vis-a-vis case law and precedent.

[Anonymous]

When my daughter went to college in upstate NY (Ithaca), there was no 2 day shipping there either. More like 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Huh? I live in a city without Prime delivery, and UPS two-day delivery most certainly meets Prime criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Why does the DC AG think that people should not read the terms and conditions before?

Why would you think the terms and conditions (which everybody knows nobody reads) override local law?

Please cite the DC law that requires Amazon to deliver anything, anywhere.

You can read the complaint your own self, here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/DC-v-Amazon-Complaint-12-4-24.pdf

The main law at issue is the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), D.C. Code § 28-3909

From the complaint:

Businesses operating in the District
have every right to take measures to protect their employees and contractors. But when those
decisions materially diminish the quality of the goods and services that District consumers are
paying for—and that businesses have assured District consumers they will receive—businesses
cannot implement those decisions in secret. On the contrary, businesses have an obligation to be
transparent about those decisions so that District consumers can make informed purchasing
decisions and can have confidence that they receive the full benefit of what they have paid for.

The bolded is the DC AGs interpretation of the law and facts. It doesn’t represent the actual law and facts.

Yes, it is from the complaint filed by the DC AG. That is how the court system works.

[Anonymous]

People on those zip codes pay taxes, but they don't get the same infrastructure and services from the local government like the people in NW, SW and NE get. They are discriminated by their government!!

Why don't the attorney general investigate the local government to find what people tax payers in SE are discriminated by DC local government. I pretty sure he is afraid to open the huge Pandora box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People on those zip codes pay taxes, but they don't get the same infrastructure and services from the local government like the people in NW, SW and NE get. They are discriminated by their government!!

Why don't the attorney general investigate the local government to find what people tax payers in SE are discriminated by DC local government. I pretty sure he is afraid to open the huge Pandora box.

I'm sure if you looked at city expenses (including emergency services), they cost more than than they contribute

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People on those zip codes pay taxes, but they don't get the same infrastructure and services from the local government like the people in NW, SW and NE get. They are discriminated by their government!!

Why don't the attorney general investigate the local government to find what people tax payers in SE are discriminated by DC local government. I pretty sure he is afraid to open the huge Pandora box.

I'm not even disagreeing that people in the SE need to have the help and services that they get. But COME ON!!!! The tax revenue is NOT coming from them. They by and large receive the benefits from the taxes paid by the NW, SE AND NE. You think the poorest in DC are paying taxes????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on those zip codes pay taxes, but they don't get the same infrastructure and services from the local government like the people in NW, SW and NE get. They are discriminated by their government!!

Why don't the attorney general investigate the local government to find what people tax payers in SE are discriminated by DC local government. I pretty sure he is afraid to open the huge Pandora box.

I'm sure if you looked at city expenses (including emergency services), they cost more than than they contribute

That maybe is true if you look in the accounting books, but in real life the money never reach the people who deserves it. Too many "intermediaries." Look at Trayon White for example.

The DC Attorney General is afraid to investigate the DC finances. He is part of the problem.