Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should a private company be forced by the govt to endager their employees?

Maybe people in those areas should simply behave themselves?

Why should a private company be forced by the government to advertise their services honestly instead of deceptively?

I think that question answers itself.

They are advertising honestly. Prime members who live in those areas will get all the service once crime goes down. It's not Amazon's responsibility to enforce crime. They can't be forced to risk their employees' lives because people in those areas commit massive amounts of crimes and the govt doesn't control it. How many people in those areas are CVS prescription members that cost a certain fee per month, but can't use the services because CVS won't open stores since crime is too high? Those people are free to cancel their memberships too.

You missed the part where Amazon made an executive decision to stop directly delivering packages to those zip codes but failed to inform customers of that decision.

If they simply stated up front "Amazon does not offer first-party delivery to your zip code, so while you will receive other benefits of Prime, we cannot guarantee 2-day shipping to your zip code and you will not have access to same-day and next-day shipping as Prime customers in other zip codes do" there would be no suit.

Amazon doesn't have to do anything different. They just have to be honest with customers about exactly what service they are being offered.

Imagine if you signed up for Amazon Prime and then discovered after the fact that the Prime streaming service blocked out a bunch of content in your zip code, and that Amazon had agreed to those blackouts due to deals with local TV stations. Would you be mad? I would. That's Amazon's right but they can't hide that from me while collecting my Prime fees and then play dumb later when I'm like "hey why can't I see this programming I paid for?" Which is exactly what Amazon customer service reps did when customers in these zip codes contacted them to ask why they were not receiving 2-day shipping -- they played dumb and acted like the problem was caused by factors beyond Amazon's control. When in fact the issue was caused by Amazon's explicit choices regarding delivery in those zip codes.

I can't imagine why anyone would defend this practice. Don't you want transparency and honesty in customer service? Why would you defend a big company being sneaky and lying to customers? I don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should a private company be forced by the govt to endager their employees?

Maybe people in those areas should simply behave themselves?

Why should a private company be forced by the government to advertise their services honestly instead of deceptively?

I think that question answers itself.

They are advertising honestly. Prime members who live in those areas will get all the service once crime goes down. It's not Amazon's responsibility to enforce crime. They can't be forced to risk their employees' lives because people in those areas commit massive amounts of crimes and the govt doesn't control it. How many people in those areas are CVS prescription members that cost a certain fee per month, but can't use the services because CVS won't open stores since crime is too high? Those people are free to cancel their memberships too.

They have other drivers deliver. They shouldn't service at all if it's so dangerous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a big issue and kudos to the DC AG for highlighting it. It’s especially problematic because Amazon doesn’t actually refund you when your item is heavily delayed. I currently have an item that is 10 days delayed and Amazon won’t refund it because it has been shipped (and Amazon expected it to be delivered Dec 1, except that now Amazon changed its mind and expects it to be delivered Dec 12.)

Doesn’t matter if it’s lost en route. Amazon says they can’t refund it til it arrives.

You can see how this quickly rises to the level of abuse in areas where Amazon is systematically delaying deliveries. People have to go out and buy replacement items for those they expected to arrive days ago because Amazon indicates a Prime Delivery time frame.

And people have double losses because the Amazon items don’t arrive on time and they have to deal with Amazon’s every declining customer service to get a refunds.

I hate to break it to you but service is no different if you live in an affluent area. I think the main difference seems to be that people don’t have a complex about it.

DC resident WoTP in a very expensive neighborhood:
I can get Prime deliveries SAME DAY on a Saturday. I order in the morning and it will be there by the afternoon if it's a common item in stock in their local distribution center. My Prime stuff usually comes the next day, or two day max.

These folks in SE DC are getting ripped off by Amazon. They not like us.

Thank you!! In all my years I have never once even seen the option to have something delivered same day or even next day. And I shop on Amazon a lot.

DC is ripping you off by not keeping your neighborhood safe enough so that Amazon drivers can deliver there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a big issue and kudos to the DC AG for highlighting it. It’s especially problematic because Amazon doesn’t actually refund you when your item is heavily delayed. I currently have an item that is 10 days delayed and Amazon won’t refund it because it has been shipped (and Amazon expected it to be delivered Dec 1, except that now Amazon changed its mind and expects it to be delivered Dec 12.)

Doesn’t matter if it’s lost en route. Amazon says they can’t refund it til it arrives.

You can see how this quickly rises to the level of abuse in areas where Amazon is systematically delaying deliveries. People have to go out and buy replacement items for those they expected to arrive days ago because Amazon indicates a Prime Delivery time frame.

And people have double losses because the Amazon items don’t arrive on time and they have to deal with Amazon’s every declining customer service to get a refunds.

I hate to break it to you but service is no different if you live in an affluent area. I think the main difference seems to be that people don’t have a complex about it.

DC resident WoTP in a very expensive neighborhood:
I can get Prime deliveries SAME DAY on a Saturday. I order in the morning and it will be there by the afternoon if it's a common item in stock in their local distribution center. My Prime stuff usually comes the next day, or two day max.

These folks in SE DC are getting ripped off by Amazon. They not like us.

Thank you!! In all my years I have never once even seen the option to have something delivered same day or even next day. And I shop on Amazon a lot.

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.

+1 I live in Ward 8. I remember when we used to get 2-day delivery early on in the Amazon days. While other parts of the city are seeing faster deliveries, Ward 7 and Ward 8 residents are seeing slower delivery times. I have lived in my house for over 19 years, and I don't remember ever seeing an Amazon delivery truck in my neighborhood. To be honest, I forgot those were a thing until I read this lawsuit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a big issue and kudos to the DC AG for highlighting it. It’s especially problematic because Amazon doesn’t actually refund you when your item is heavily delayed. I currently have an item that is 10 days delayed and Amazon won’t refund it because it has been shipped (and Amazon expected it to be delivered Dec 1, except that now Amazon changed its mind and expects it to be delivered Dec 12.)

Doesn’t matter if it’s lost en route. Amazon says they can’t refund it til it arrives.

You can see how this quickly rises to the level of abuse in areas where Amazon is systematically delaying deliveries. People have to go out and buy replacement items for those they expected to arrive days ago because Amazon indicates a Prime Delivery time frame.

And people have double losses because the Amazon items don’t arrive on time and they have to deal with Amazon’s every declining customer service to get a refunds.

I hate to break it to you but service is no different if you live in an affluent area. I think the main difference seems to be that people don’t have a complex about it.

DC resident WoTP in a very expensive neighborhood:
I can get Prime deliveries SAME DAY on a Saturday. I order in the morning and it will be there by the afternoon if it's a common item in stock in their local distribution center. My Prime stuff usually comes the next day, or two day max.

These folks in SE DC are getting ripped off by Amazon. They not like us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a big issue and kudos to the DC AG for highlighting it. It’s especially problematic because Amazon doesn’t actually refund you when your item is heavily delayed. I currently have an item that is 10 days delayed and Amazon won’t refund it because it has been shipped (and Amazon expected it to be delivered Dec 1, except that now Amazon changed its mind and expects it to be delivered Dec 12.)

Doesn’t matter if it’s lost en route. Amazon says they can’t refund it til it arrives.

You can see how this quickly rises to the level of abuse in areas where Amazon is systematically delaying deliveries. People have to go out and buy replacement items for those they expected to arrive days ago because Amazon indicates a Prime Delivery time frame.

And people have double losses because the Amazon items don’t arrive on time and they have to deal with Amazon’s every declining customer service to get a refunds.

I hate to break it to you but service is no different if you live in an affluent area. I think the main difference seems to be that people don’t have a complex about it.

It's not a "complex" to expect to receive the services that are promised, particularly from one of the largest companies in the world with staff capable of logistics management and high quality data analytics. It's not having a "complex" to expect to get a refund for services that haven't been delivered, particularly when Amazon expects customers to wait until they *think* an item should have been delivered, which can be well over two weeks and people have to purchase replacement items. If Amazon is systematically targeting certain zipcodes for poor service, they have a right to pay less for those services. Sorry your expectation are so low.

Anonymous wrote:This is a big issue and kudos to the DC AG for highlighting it. It’s especially problematic because Amazon doesn’t actually refund you when your item is heavily delayed. I currently have an item that is 10 days delayed and Amazon won’t refund it because it has been shipped (and Amazon expected it to be delivered Dec 1, except that now Amazon changed its mind and expects it to be delivered Dec 12.)

Doesn’t matter if it’s lost en route. Amazon says they can’t refund it til it arrives.

You can see how this quickly rises to the level of abuse in areas where Amazon is systematically delaying deliveries. People have to go out and buy replacement items for those they expected to arrive days ago because Amazon indicates a Prime Delivery time frame.

And people have double losses because the Amazon items don’t arrive on time and they have to deal with Amazon’s every declining customer service to get a refunds.

I hate to break it to you but service is no different if you live in an affluent area. I think the main difference seems to be that people don’t have a complex about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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

+1 This. Amazon service has been dropping a lot since I became a Prime member a decade plus ago. I don't even live in a high crime area, and my items don't arrive, and there's no messages about he delays even if the items are 1 week late past what we were indicated as estimated delivery time at Checkout. Amazon doesn't send a message notifying the customer of the delay, and their customer service is awful. I would be doubly furious if I had to pay a full price for a Prime subscription Amazon didn't even intend to honor.

Customer service has sucked ever since it was outsourced to India.

This is a big issue and kudos to the DC AG for highlighting it. It’s especially problematic because Amazon doesn’t actually refund you when your item is heavily delayed. I currently have an item that is 10 days delayed and Amazon won’t refund it because it has been shipped (and Amazon expected it to be delivered Dec 1, except that now Amazon changed its mind and expects it to be delivered Dec 12.)

Doesn’t matter if it’s lost en route. Amazon says they can’t refund it til it arrives.

You can see how this quickly rises to the level of abuse in areas where Amazon is systematically delaying deliveries. People have to go out and buy replacement items for those they expected to arrive days ago because Amazon indicates a Prime Delivery time frame.

And people have double losses because the Amazon items don’t arrive on time and they have to deal with Amazon’s every declining customer service to get a refunds.

Too bad that the navigation software company that helped people avoid sketchy areas was forced out of business. We could use that tool!

Anonymous wrote:Why should a private company be forced by the govt to endager their employees?

Maybe people in those areas should simply behave themselves?

Why should a private company be forced by the government to advertise their services honestly instead of deceptively?

I think that question answers itself.

Why should a private company be forced by the govt to endager their employees?

Maybe people in those areas should simply behave themselves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You didn’t read the story. The AG made it clear that they’re not mad about not sending laser ship drivers, the lawsuit is about still charging people for prime membership without telling them about the limits in their zip code.

Prime membership is not just about shipping. It also gives you access to Prime Video and Whole Foods discounts.

Then they can work out the value of those services and discount the shipping part accordingly for the parts that Amazon isn't shipping to as they do for other geographic areas. But I would suspect that 90% of Amazon Prime Customers don't value Prime for the Whole Foods "discounts."

you're kinda proving the point against the lawsuit - everyone values different elements of Prime differently, and remaining a paying Prime member when the website gives you clear shipping estimates before purchase implies there is enough value in those other elements to keep Prime. so you can't conclusively prove any deception, especially not against every member of certain zipcodes as a class

No, I'm kinda not. It's deception to promise a benefit when you have no intention to provide it to targeted zip codes. AG was right to file this lawsuit.