8 ms·

I wonder just like retailers are required to account for local sales taxes (I know it is not that clear cut), there should be some enforcement mechanism to sett

I wonder just like retailers are required to account for local sales taxes (I know it is not that clear cut), there should be some enforcement mechanism to settle disputes locally. Setup an agency which "legally" provides support for google, Amazon, and all those unreachable entities. Provides local jobs as well as quick grievance redressal. Maybe something like consumer protection agency but not federal, maybe at least one per county maybe more depending on the population. Edit - I don't mind paying for the service. Maybe charge everyone $99 to file a case to avoid everyone piling on, but it helps resolve most egregious ones, and fee could be refunded at the agency's discretion.

hnuser123456 9mo ago
Or maybe pass some laws with more penalties for defrauding your own customers.
andylynch 9mo ago
I can't speak for how effective the process is, but this is the idea behind the EU/UK GPSR's Authorised Representative framework - though not exactly local (that would be excessive, since GPSR also applies to much smaller sellers too)
- RobotToaster 9mo ago
  I hope it works better than the EU DSA dispute resolution, which I've heard multiple accounts of youtube just ignoring.
- deaux 9mo ago
  Haha, let me guess, if they're based in Ireland then this enforcement is up to Ireland as well, so it's as toothless as the other digital laws?
RobotToaster 9mo ago
Some kind of court, for small claims?
- qmr 9mo ago
  We could call it "small claims court".
- eli 9mo ago
  Just need to outlaw binding arbitration
  - charcircuit 9mo ago
    Amazon will reimburse arbitration fees if you win making it a cheaper option for consumers than small claims court.
    - eszed 9mo ago
      "If". [Edit, because one-word replies are uncivilized: one reason to be suspicious about binding arbitration is that the company against whom you'll be pleading is a repeat customer of that arbitration service. It's a non-transparent / non-public process, so it's hard to have confidence is fair, and over which we (ie, the public) have no influence if it were not.]
      - charcircuit 9mo ago
        >is a repeat customer of that arbitration service Who is locked in by the contract. The arbitration company gets their fees no matter the outcome. >so it's hard to have confidence is fair You can appeal to a court if it's unfair.
        eli 9mo ago
        "We examine whether firms have an informational advantage in selecting arbitrators in consumer arbitration [...] We first document that some arbitrators are systematically industry friendly while others are consumer friendly. Firms appear to utilize this information in the arbitrator selection process. Despite a randomly generated list of potential arbitrators, industry-friendly arbitrators are forty percent more likely to be selected than their consumer friendly counterparts. Better informed firms and consumers choose more favorable arbitrators. [...] Competition between arbitrators exacerbates the informational advantage of firms in equilibrium resulting in all arbitrators slanting towards being industry friendly. Evidence suggests that limiting the respondent’s and claimant’s inputs over the arbitrator selection process could significantly improve outcomes for consumers." https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/arbitration-uninformed-consumers https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers...
zackmorris 9mo ago
The solution to authoritarian problems is to organize. In this case, we're overdue for a service that we all pay into, like a collective credit card, that only continues making payments to companies like Amazon if all of the members are happy. When you get banned without due process, payments stop until the matter is resolved. Also, the collective can bargain-down rates. If it senses price increases beyond inflation, it just sends the adjusted amount, like 95%, until the matter is resolved. We need this collective bargaining for housing (like tenant unions), the workplace, politics, pharmaceuticals, etc. The scale of this is so large that the collective could exist beyond any specific industry. So that it would operate as a meta economy beside the so-called free market economy (late-stage capitalism) that we operate under today due to the lack of antitrust enforcement. Groups like the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll) are working towards these sorts of goals on a number of fronts: https://weall.org/ https://weall.org/
dragonwriter 9mo ago
> there should be some enforcement mechanism to settle disputes locally. They are called courts and they exist. Of course, companies like to require you to agree to binding arbitration, instead.
d3Xt3r 9mo ago
How would that work for countries where Amazon doesn't have a legal presence? A foreign court would be able to do anything.

hnuser123456 9mo ago

Or maybe pass some laws with more penalties for defrauding your own customers.

andylynch 9mo ago

I can't speak for how effective the process is, but this is the idea behind the EU/UK GPSR's Authorised Representative framework - though not exactly local (that would be excessive, since GPSR also applies to much smaller sellers too)

RobotToaster 9mo ago
I hope it works better than the EU DSA dispute resolution, which I've heard multiple accounts of youtube just ignoring.
deaux 9mo ago
Haha, let me guess, if they're based in Ireland then this enforcement is up to Ireland as well, so it's as toothless as the other digital laws?

RobotToaster 9mo ago

Some kind of court, for small claims?

qmr 9mo ago
We could call it "small claims court".
eli 9mo ago
Just need to outlaw binding arbitration
- charcircuit 9mo ago
  Amazon will reimburse arbitration fees if you win making it a cheaper option for consumers than small claims court.
  - eszed 9mo ago
    "If". [Edit, because one-word replies are uncivilized: one reason to be suspicious about binding arbitration is that the company against whom you'll be pleading is a repeat customer of that arbitration service. It's a non-transparent / non-public process, so it's hard to have confidence is fair, and over which we (ie, the public) have no influence if it were not.]
    - charcircuit 9mo ago
      >is a repeat customer of that arbitration service Who is locked in by the contract. The arbitration company gets their fees no matter the outcome. >so it's hard to have confidence is fair You can appeal to a court if it's unfair.
      - eli 9mo ago
        "We examine whether firms have an informational advantage in selecting arbitrators in consumer arbitration [...] We first document that some arbitrators are systematically industry friendly while others are consumer friendly. Firms appear to utilize this information in the arbitrator selection process. Despite a randomly generated list of potential arbitrators, industry-friendly arbitrators are forty percent more likely to be selected than their consumer friendly counterparts. Better informed firms and consumers choose more favorable arbitrators. [...] Competition between arbitrators exacerbates the informational advantage of firms in equilibrium resulting in all arbitrators slanting towards being industry friendly. Evidence suggests that limiting the respondent’s and claimant’s inputs over the arbitrator selection process could significantly improve outcomes for consumers." https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/arbitration-uninformed-consumers https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers...

zackmorris 9mo ago

The solution to authoritarian problems is to organize. In this case, we're overdue for a service that we all pay into, like a collective credit card, that only continues making payments to companies like Amazon if all of the members are happy. When you get banned without due process, payments stop until the matter is resolved. Also, the collective can bargain-down rates. If it senses price increases beyond inflation, it just sends the adjusted amount, like 95%, until the matter is resolved. We need this collective bargaining for housing (like tenant unions), the workplace, politics, pharmaceuticals, etc. The scale of this is so large that the collective could exist beyond any specific industry. So that it would operate as a meta economy beside the so-called free market economy (late-stage capitalism) that we operate under today due to the lack of antitrust enforcement. Groups like the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll) are working towards these sorts of goals on a number of fronts: https://weall.org/ https://weall.org/

dragonwriter 9mo ago

> there should be some enforcement mechanism to settle disputes locally. They are called courts and they exist. Of course, companies like to require you to agree to binding arbitration, instead.

d3Xt3r 9mo ago

How would that work for countries where Amazon doesn't have a legal presence? A foreign court would be able to do anything.