Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-15/amazon-s-war-on-fake-eclipse-glasses-trips-up-newbie-merchant
64 comments
Amazon have apparently panicked gone a bit wild with this. People have been reporting that they've got similar recall emails about high-end solar telescopes and similar equipment from reputable, established manufacturers and sellers: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/508537-pst-recall/
> he was foolish to have listed them when buying in such quantity and it's not surprising that Amazon would suspend him for trying to sell them.
The fuck are you talking about? They operate a business which specifically allows people to sell stuff. Why would he expect to have his account suspended.
Have you been paying attention to these problems? They fucked up by binning counterfeits with real glasses, and now people like this guy got caught up.
It's pretty indefensible when you consider how long they have had a counterfeiting problem they haven't dealt with.
This should end up with them getting sued, honestly. It's ridiculous.
The fuck are you talking about? They operate a business which specifically allows people to sell stuff. Why would he expect to have his account suspended.
Have you been paying attention to these problems? They fucked up by binning counterfeits with real glasses, and now people like this guy got caught up.
It's pretty indefensible when you consider how long they have had a counterfeiting problem they haven't dealt with.
This should end up with them getting sued, honestly. It's ridiculous.
It's not clear from the article whether this was a counterfeit issue or if the issue is that the glasses (allegedly) don't work and can cause people to damage their eyes. There's nothing in the article about co-mingled inventory.
Totally legitimate multi-million dollar sellers get suspended for dumber reasons and even by mistake.
Totally legitimate multi-million dollar sellers get suspended for dumber reasons and even by mistake.
> Most frequently counterfeited (like Jewelry) or otherwise problematic/hazardous categories are 'category gated' and require you to submit a bunch of documentation to sell in it.
I find it surprising that Amazon doesn't gate protective products that can injure people when there's so much focus on counterfeits which primarily injure brands. This time they got burned by simple category 1 PPE and made a big stink about sunglasses, but still allow non-conforming category 3* PPE to be sold.
example: https://www.amazon.com/YXGOOD-Treestand-Harness-Climbing-Fir...
There's no way that this product would withstand any sort of scrutiny if Amazon actually requested the conformity documentation before selling it. Returned it and reported it - still for sale.
Seems insane that luggage is gated when safety products aren't.
* I'm using the European terminology here because it gives a pretty sane way of thinking about and handling the certification for PPE. Compliance in the US is way more fragmented across different product classes.
I find it surprising that Amazon doesn't gate protective products that can injure people when there's so much focus on counterfeits which primarily injure brands. This time they got burned by simple category 1 PPE and made a big stink about sunglasses, but still allow non-conforming category 3* PPE to be sold.
example: https://www.amazon.com/YXGOOD-Treestand-Harness-Climbing-Fir...
There's no way that this product would withstand any sort of scrutiny if Amazon actually requested the conformity documentation before selling it. Returned it and reported it - still for sale.
Seems insane that luggage is gated when safety products aren't.
* I'm using the European terminology here because it gives a pretty sane way of thinking about and handling the certification for PPE. Compliance in the US is way more fragmented across different product classes.
Yeah Amazon doesn't review any stuff like that. They may respond to reports after the fact and have a pretty low threshold for suspending a product, but they aren't going to inspect it or test it.
> Amazon does have all kinds of escalation features and different levels of seller support to deal with a suspension.
Hah, my amazon seller account got automatically suspended due to at $0.12 balance that Amazon had added retroactively and never notified me about. I paid it and figured it would be automatically un-suspended, but nope...
I reached out through every support channel I could find. All of my seller account tickets were automatically closed as "resolved" without any human response. Twitter gave me the run-around. Someone on the forum said they'd look into it, but nothing changed.
But you know worked? Canceling all of my AWS services and explaining that it was due to shoddy treatment from other parts Amazon. My seller account was un-frozen a few days later. I let the last item of mine they had sell and haven't looked back since.
Hah, my amazon seller account got automatically suspended due to at $0.12 balance that Amazon had added retroactively and never notified me about. I paid it and figured it would be automatically un-suspended, but nope...
I reached out through every support channel I could find. All of my seller account tickets were automatically closed as "resolved" without any human response. Twitter gave me the run-around. Someone on the forum said they'd look into it, but nothing changed.
But you know worked? Canceling all of my AWS services and explaining that it was due to shoddy treatment from other parts Amazon. My seller account was un-frozen a few days later. I let the last item of mine they had sell and haven't looked back since.
So I bought a pack of glasses off of Amazon a few weeks ago. I made sure they were listed as adhering to the ISO standard before buying, confirmed the ISO logo and # on the glasses themselves once they arrived, and then proceeded to try them out and observe the sun a bit. That evening I then saw an article along these lines about fake glasses flooding Amazon. Curious, I checked my purchase history and the listing had been removed entirely.
so now I'm super worried that I A) Stared into the sun for like 10-15 minutes with sketchy glasses and B) will not be able to use these on Monday. Probably gonna run to Lowes and buy a pair or two there, since I can be reasonably sure they're safe.
so now I'm super worried that I A) Stared into the sun for like 10-15 minutes with sketchy glasses and B) will not be able to use these on Monday. Probably gonna run to Lowes and buy a pair or two there, since I can be reasonably sure they're safe.
There is no way I'm ever staring directly at the (full, non-eclipsed) sun for 15 minutes, no matter how good the glasses claim to be.
[deleted]
I ordered a dozen eclipse glasses which are clearly fake or defective as I can see my kitchen light with them. Amazon did NOT send me a recall email. People are going to get injured. I hope Amazon gets sued for major punitive damages. They've had this problem for many years, have absolutely no quality control, and most of their products are fake or garbage. In response to returns of this garbage, they proceed to ban buyer accounts. Why does it have to take people going blind before Amazon changes its ways? What a shitty fucking company. Fuck them. I hope the people who suffer get awarded billions in damages but they won't. They'll be lucky to be able to afford their medical bills. And this despite the fact that Amazon knowingly failed to notify some users like myself. Fuck Amazon.
Related to this, there was a series of 'solar telescopes' being sold as Childrens Toys a couple years back (unfortunately I can't find the original article now) which was very dangerous because the usage was such that you use your eye on the telescope to view the image (rather than reflecting off a wall, which is a much safer practice) and the solar filter inside was very easily dislodged - not attached all that well. In the event it happens, you can say goodbye to your eyes :(
> "After the eclipse these glasses are worthless," says Wright, who invested about $4,000 in cardboard eyewear that resembles 3-D movie glasses. "I’ll just throw them in the trash."
Yeah, and you knew that when you bought them.
This guy got screwed, but this was a risk he should have realized (not being able to clear inventory)
If he flew out here did he bring any with him? I'll give 10 dollars a pair today.
Yeah, and you knew that when you bought them.
This guy got screwed, but this was a risk he should have realized (not being able to clear inventory)
If he flew out here did he bring any with him? I'll give 10 dollars a pair today.
I can't really say I'm surprised about this. If your income depends on the corporate policy of a 3rd party you don't have any contractual business relationship with then you have to be able to take the hit if/when they pull the rug out from under you.
Perhaps I am just risk averse, but this sounds enormously financially irresponsible. This man literally shoved all in on with a vendor he neither understood nor had a previous relationship with. I don't think you should be risking making rent for this type of thing.
That is what you have to do to start a business: take large risks. Many businesses fail like this and the entrepreneur loses a lot. It is common for someone running a small business to have to work a night job at a gas station or some such job because after paying the bills there isn't enough left to pay himself.
True, but when making investments like this you shouldn't invest money you can't afford to lose.
> "The problem is that anybody, anywhere, can sell just about anything on Amazon and eBay, including counterfeit glasses that may be dangerous. Buyers won’t discover their error until after the eclipse, or they suffer serious or permanent eye damage. The sellers will be long gone."
seems like a perfectly reasonable case of due diligence on the part of Amazon.
seems like a perfectly reasonable case of due diligence on the part of Amazon.
Except Amazon doesn't do due diligence on anything else they sell. They got scared because they know they sell counterfeit products but this one will have potential lawsuits on August 22nd
To be fair, a counterfeit that ruins your sight and a counterfeit phone case are a bit different are they not?
Root cause is the same bad policies.
Yes, but at the same time there are news articles going back to at least late July (google 'amazon policy eclipse') to Amazon giving refunds for shady (pun intended) sellers of fake eclipse shades. If his ability to pay rent is literally hinging on this get-rich scheme, you would think he would be more diligent. I do think Amazon acted correctly in suspending his account until he proved his items are legit.
Well, see if the get rich scheme worked, we'd all be doing it.
Well with that logic, it must work in some fashion else people wouldn't bother.
When product liability lawsuits start flying, every point the product touches along its route to the consumer gets named. The ones with deep pockets especially.
As big as amazon is, this could have been noticeable exposure, especially if they are partially self-insured and/or have other risk-sharing provisions in place.
Think: class-action lawsuit on an order of magnitude approaching asbestos.
I'm exaggerating a bit, but Amazon is wise to avoid total reliance on their position as facilitating a marketplace as opposed to being the seller. I don't think too many courts would toss a lawsuit over a newly vision-impaired 12 year old just because Amazon only got a cut of the sale as opposed to was the seller -- TOS provisions be damned.
As big as amazon is, this could have been noticeable exposure, especially if they are partially self-insured and/or have other risk-sharing provisions in place.
Think: class-action lawsuit on an order of magnitude approaching asbestos.
I'm exaggerating a bit, but Amazon is wise to avoid total reliance on their position as facilitating a marketplace as opposed to being the seller. I don't think too many courts would toss a lawsuit over a newly vision-impaired 12 year old just because Amazon only got a cut of the sale as opposed to was the seller -- TOS provisions be damned.
It doesn't seem to me that a single email should be sufficient to remove their liability for selling these things. They have sold thousands of glasses with the description of being ISO certified and safe to use. They've been selling them for months. Then a week before the event they sent out an email telling you it wasn't safe to use them. What percent of their customers will never see that email and potentially ruin their vision?
Well, there are also the multiple news stories in a bunch of different newspapers and (I assume) TV channels.
I'm not a lawyer, but intuitively it seems like the more control they exercise over their products the weaker the claim that they're just a middleman becomes. Wouldn't a record of being directly involved in quality control significantly damage their case in the event that a lawsuit does occur?
In many cases amazon is clearly liable. Amazon is the one who mixed unsafe and safe glasses. When someone ordered from a safe seller amazon didn't always ship the glasses that seller provided, they shipped something which might be safe or might be dangerous.
If this goes to court this guy is safe because his supplier will show up with their lawyers (and deeper pockets) and point out that their glasses are safe. They will show that Amazon was the party who didn't take care.
Note, there are many different ways to sell on amazon. I'm not clear which route this guy took, only some result in nobody knowing if the glasses amazon ships are safe.
If this goes to court this guy is safe because his supplier will show up with their lawyers (and deeper pockets) and point out that their glasses are safe. They will show that Amazon was the party who didn't take care.
Note, there are many different ways to sell on amazon. I'm not clear which route this guy took, only some result in nobody knowing if the glasses amazon ships are safe.
In the US, products liability law places responsibility for defective products on all commercial participants in the chain, from manufacturer to the final retail seller.
It doesn't matter whether they're involved in any QC at all; it is sufficient that they're selling a product for profit.
Right, but in this case several parties will get out because they are not part of the chain because amazon did not carefully preserve the full chain. Amazon will be liable to the entirely of the chain not just a part because they didn't track the full train on each product.
A business is required to do due diligence for the business it does. Doesn't matter if it's a marketplace, a seller, a reseller, or whatever.
Avoiding quality control on purpose is no excuse. That's a proof that you are not following the law and that can be considered as aggravating circumstances if you avoid it on purpose. That's the sort of thing that a judge may consider as a reason to send you to jail for longer.
Avoiding quality control on purpose is no excuse. That's a proof that you are not following the law and that can be considered as aggravating circumstances if you avoid it on purpose. That's the sort of thing that a judge may consider as a reason to send you to jail for longer.
Products liability law is civil, not criminal law. Quality Control doesn't absolve any commercial participant from liability for a defective product. Whether or not QC is required depends on the product (i.e., generally it is required for food at every level but retail, whereas it may be mostly optional for electronics).
well, you can't start that today right before someone's eyes get burned out. You could have taken that stance in 2000.
People have been complaining more and more lately about Amazon's problems with counterfeiting.
How to tell if your eclipse glasses are fake?
Put them on and look at a bright light. You shouldn't be able to see anything. It's not foolproof, but cheap fake glasses are usually so bad that you can see household lights through them.
You can also see if the brand you have is on this list, although someone could have faked a reputable brand name: https://eclipse.aas.org/resources/solar-filters
You can also see if the brand you have is on this list, although someone could have faked a reputable brand name: https://eclipse.aas.org/resources/solar-filters
I believe that the method of looking at a bright light is not fully reliable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15006250. I would love to be told I am wrong, since I have four pairs that pass this test without a problem, and I wish I could trust them.
It definitely isn't, it's just a good quick check. I don't think there's any easy way of testing UV protection at home.
It depends on the light. If you stare directly at a bare LED or filament for an incandescent bulb, you will probably be able to see it.
Yep, I have a pair of glasses shipped directly from American Paper Optics (so I know they're genuine) and the only things I can see through them (besides the sun) are the bare filament of a 60W incandescent bulb and the LED chip in my phone camera flash.
There is a False Reject/Accept problem here.
If you believe your Amazon email, all glasses are fake (at least I've got email saying so for glasses I know are good).
If you want a quick way to weed out bad glasses, see if you can see a compact fluorescent light bulb, with the glasses... if you can, they are bad. Unfortunately, you could still have bad glasses that happen to just block fluorescents.
I used a spectrometer and a calibrated light source, but that seems like overkill for most folks.
One trick I recommend is putting the reflective foil inside some regular sun glasses. It's uch more comfortable, and you get some extra IR/UV protection.
If you believe your Amazon email, all glasses are fake (at least I've got email saying so for glasses I know are good).
If you want a quick way to weed out bad glasses, see if you can see a compact fluorescent light bulb, with the glasses... if you can, they are bad. Unfortunately, you could still have bad glasses that happen to just block fluorescents.
I used a spectrometer and a calibrated light source, but that seems like overkill for most folks.
One trick I recommend is putting the reflective foil inside some regular sun glasses. It's uch more comfortable, and you get some extra IR/UV protection.
Most of them aren't actually 'fake', they are just not rated high enough to look directly at the sun. I bought a ten pack on ebay on Friday, and only 2 pairs were ISO 13 or higher, the other 8 pairs were ISO 5 grade. They are still ISO rated, just not for eclipses. So to check, look and see what rating you have on your glasses and look for >13.
It's worth noting the sticker might be lying too.
I have the same question. I ordered some from Amazon for my kids. I hope this article means that they were carefully verified by Amazon, but it has still made me uneasy about using them. Just knowing fakes are common is really concerning.
Assuming you got paper glasses, on the inside of the arms of the glasses should be information about the ISO certifications and who manufactured it. Compare this against NASA's approved manufacturer list. If there's no info or they're not on the list, don't risk using them.
It's weird but I've got a co-worker who bought some cheap Chinese ones and actually block more light from a phone's flash LED than my legit, approved pair. I'd still never use them since my test is very simple and I don't understand enough about the properties that make for good solar filters.
It's weird but I've got a co-worker who bought some cheap Chinese ones and actually block more light from a phone's flash LED than my legit, approved pair. I'd still never use them since my test is very simple and I don't understand enough about the properties that make for good solar filters.
Wouldn't a faker just steal the name of a manufacturer on the list?
As far as I understood, the "fake" part of these fake eclipse glasses is calling them eclipse glasses with the implication that they are safe when they are not or not made to the proper standards, not that they were forging real manufacturer information.
Your understanding seems wrong:
https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety
If your understanding were correct, the difference between fake and real glasses wouldn't be minor ones such as round-ness of certain parts.
If your understanding were correct, the difference between fake and real glasses wouldn't be minor ones such as round-ness of certain parts.
[deleted]
Don't risk it. I've got some extras I ordered directly from one of the NASA-endorsed suppliers. E-mail me your mailing address and I'll send you some. My e-mail is (also in the profile, but doesn't seem to be visible; maybe my karma's too low?) [HN user name] at x0.ms.
Is it really worth the risk?
[deleted]
Afterwards, you look around and ask yourself: "Do I truly see?"
[deleted]
> He got an email Monday afternoon from Amazon informing him that he could continue selling glasses on the site through his account Moon Vision Products.
...
> Meanwhile, Wright worried aloud whether there was still time to sell the glasses or if he would be shut down again.
I think that there are enough people now who are worried over the counterfeits that he would have no trouble selling his, IF people can actually find them.
Going to Amazon and typing "Moon Vision" into the search field, it suggests the completion "Moon Vision Products" in "Health, Household, and Baby Care". Accepting that brings up three pages of products, none of which have anything to do with eclipse glasses and appear to have no connection whatsoever to Moon Vision Products.
So either he's been suspended again, or Amazon's search sucks. Either is bad news for him.
...
> Meanwhile, Wright worried aloud whether there was still time to sell the glasses or if he would be shut down again.
I think that there are enough people now who are worried over the counterfeits that he would have no trouble selling his, IF people can actually find them.
Going to Amazon and typing "Moon Vision" into the search field, it suggests the completion "Moon Vision Products" in "Health, Household, and Baby Care". Accepting that brings up three pages of products, none of which have anything to do with eclipse glasses and appear to have no connection whatsoever to Moon Vision Products.
So either he's been suspended again, or Amazon's search sucks. Either is bad news for him.
Does anyone know of the pros and cons of using these glasses vs using a pinhole camera?
Experienced eclipse watcher here.
For the partial eclipse, I recommend a pinhole projector instead of eclipse glasses, especially for children but for adults too. It is 100% safe, because you never look directly at the sun.
For the total eclipse during totality, the only way to view it is with no eye protection at all. You won't see a thing with eclipse glasses or a pinhole projector. And binoculars are highly recommended for a magnificent view of the solar corona.
You do have to make sure to stop watching as soon as the "diamond ring" or "Baily's beads" appear. Totality is over then.
I posted more details here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15006190
For the partial eclipse, I recommend a pinhole projector instead of eclipse glasses, especially for children but for adults too. It is 100% safe, because you never look directly at the sun.
For the total eclipse during totality, the only way to view it is with no eye protection at all. You won't see a thing with eclipse glasses or a pinhole projector. And binoculars are highly recommended for a magnificent view of the solar corona.
You do have to make sure to stop watching as soon as the "diamond ring" or "Baily's beads" appear. Totality is over then.
I posted more details here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15006190
I was under the impression that the diamond ring is what makes it so dangerous to look at an eclipse with naked eyes. Because your eyes adjust to the darkness and in an instant it's flooded with a fuckton of sunlight.
There is definitely some truth to that. You wouldn't want to keep staring at the diamond ring! Or any of the partial eclipse.
This is anecdata, but I viewed the 1979 total eclipse with binoculars, and when the diamond ring and Baily's beads appeared at the end of totality, I kept looking at them with the binoculars for a few seconds longer than I should have. It didn't damage my vision in the slightest.
I'm not saying I recommend that! But if you look away the moment they appear, you will be fine. Otherwise organizations like NASA and the American Astronomical Society wouldn't recommend viewing the total eclipse with binoculars.
For some more reputable sources than my own anecdotes, I posted several links in a couple of Reddit comments a while back:
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6rkqr0/the_path_of_t...
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6rkqr0/the_path_of_t...
I was also involved in a discussion in this Reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6lyei5/befor...
You don't want to risk your vision at all, of course, but in other recent eclipses, many people were too cautious and based their decisions on fear, as happened to this astronomer when he was a child:
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-ecli...
One other thing I forgot to mention: if you are viewing the total eclipse, don't bother taking pictures! Totality will end all too soon, and the time you spend fiddling with your camera is time you won't get to experience the eclipse.
This is anecdata, but I viewed the 1979 total eclipse with binoculars, and when the diamond ring and Baily's beads appeared at the end of totality, I kept looking at them with the binoculars for a few seconds longer than I should have. It didn't damage my vision in the slightest.
I'm not saying I recommend that! But if you look away the moment they appear, you will be fine. Otherwise organizations like NASA and the American Astronomical Society wouldn't recommend viewing the total eclipse with binoculars.
For some more reputable sources than my own anecdotes, I posted several links in a couple of Reddit comments a while back:
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6rkqr0/the_path_of_t...
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6rkqr0/the_path_of_t...
I was also involved in a discussion in this Reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6lyei5/befor...
You don't want to risk your vision at all, of course, but in other recent eclipses, many people were too cautious and based their decisions on fear, as happened to this astronomer when he was a child:
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-ecli...
One other thing I forgot to mention: if you are viewing the total eclipse, don't bother taking pictures! Totality will end all too soon, and the time you spend fiddling with your camera is time you won't get to experience the eclipse.
Well, a pinhole camera can be verified safe by simple inspection, which is an advantage it has over all the putative eclipse glasses.... Although it's certainly less visceral.
Given the people saying that totality is safe to view without glasses, and that totality is the real show (alas, I'm not going to catch this one, though I'm hoping to catch the next one... I don't quite live in that one's path, but it's a close thing), I think I'd find myself inclined to go pinhole camera + naked eye at totality with care to look away before the sun returns.
Given the people saying that totality is safe to view without glasses, and that totality is the real show (alas, I'm not going to catch this one, though I'm hoping to catch the next one... I don't quite live in that one's path, but it's a close thing), I think I'd find myself inclined to go pinhole camera + naked eye at totality with care to look away before the sun returns.
If the glasses were counterfeit, obviously his suspension was justified and he might have committed a felony. If they were authentic but just unsafe, he was foolish to have listed them when buying in such quantity and it's not surprising that Amazon would suspend him for trying to sell them.
However, Amazon is very inconsistent and capricious in how it enforces snake oil rules on supplements and similar kinds of products. In many cases legitimate sellers with authentic FDA-approved GMP-compliant stuff get into trouble while snake oil vendors manage to skirt the rules and get away with selling ineffective stuff.
Amazon does have all kinds of escalation features and different levels of seller support to deal with a suspension. The real issue he had was just buying a lot of highly speculative products that could pose a danger to customers with no sales history at all.
There are so many other cases in which Amazon acts unjustly or inconsistently enforces its (often arbitrarily applied) rules. This is not really one of them.
It is false that anyone can sell anything on Amazon. Most frequently counterfeited (like Jewelry) or otherwise problematic/hazardous categories are 'category gated' and require you to submit a bunch of documentation to sell in it. While there are a lot of problems with the way Amazon does these reviews, it does make it challenging for bottom tier scammer types to pass review and to maintain their right to sell in that category.