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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are bad pockets in those areas, but it isn't like the entirety of the east of the river zip codes are bad.

DC AG is right here. If Amazon doesn't want to deliver there, then they should not be offering Prime memberships that guarantee delivery.

Does Prime guarantee delivery?

Anonymous wrote:There are bad pockets in those areas, but it isn't like the entirety of the east of the river zip codes are bad.

DC AG is right here. If Amazon doesn't want to deliver there, then they should not be offering Prime memberships that guarantee delivery.

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.

When you contract with people and charge them to do X knowing full well you don't intend to fulfill the terms of the contract, you are in breach and can get sued. It has nothing to do with local law.

Amazon doesn’t promise anything vis-à-vis Prime. I don’t live in a high crime area of DC and I frequently encounter items not available for Prime delivery.

There has been a long standing practice of DC government trying to punish companies that divest from poor, high crime areas. They harass supermarkets. They harass pharmacies. They harass banks. This has been going on for decades and is nothing new.

I guess that's for the courts to figure out now. If you charge people for Prime they should get the service you charge them for. If not, sell them a discounted service or don't charge at all.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. The AG is not "big mad" that Amazon decided not to use its in-house delivery service to these zip codes -- that's their prerogative. They are being sued because they used 3rd party delivery service which is lower without informing customers in these zip codes that they were not getting the same Prime service as customers in other areas. And he's arguing the harm was great in these zipcodes than it would have been elsewhere because these households are already underserved by services (grocery stores for instance) and so rely more heavily on Amazon for basic goods. Amazon exploited this need by collecting Prime memberships fees from these households, and advertising it's Prime service to these households, without disclosing that it doesn't actually offer true Prime services in these zip codes.

It's actually a pretty good case and if the AG can get Amazon to refund membership fees to these customers and pay restitution for the the fraudulent sale of Prime memberships, it benefits all consumers in DC by keeping Amazon accountable for delivering on its promises for Prime service. Prime gets more expensive every year and the company is clearly trying to find ways to avoid delivering on its promise. They should not be allowed to make these promises, collect fees, and then not deliver (literally).

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.

When you contract with people and charge them to do X knowing full well you don't intend to fulfill the terms of the contract, you are in breach and can get sued. It has nothing to do with local law.

Amazon doesn’t promise anything vis-à-vis Prime. I don’t live in a high crime area of DC and I frequently encounter items not available for Prime delivery.

There has been a long standing practice of DC government trying to punish companies that divest from poor, high crime areas. They harass supermarkets. They harass pharmacies. They harass banks. This has been going on for decades and is nothing new.

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.

When you contract with people and charge them to do X knowing full well you don't intend to fulfill the terms of the contract, you are in breach and can get sued. It has nothing to do with local law.

Amazon doesn’t promise anything vis-à-vis Prime. I don’t live in a high crime area of DC and I frequently encounter items not available for Prime delivery.

There has been a long standing practice of DC government trying to punish companies that divest from poor, high crime areas. They harass supermarkets. They harass pharmacies. They harass banks. This has been going on for decades and is nothing new.

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.

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.

When you contract with people and charge them to do X knowing full well you don't intend to fulfill the terms of the contract, you are in breach and can get sued. It has nothing to do with local law.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.