Shopping Safely in the Online World

In terms of customer service nightmares - from the customer side - the recent New York Times story about "DecorMyEyes" is about as bad as it gets. I mean, seriously, when was the last time you heard of an attempt to return merchandise resulting in a criminal warrant for stalking being issued against the proprietor of a business?

Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land quickly pointed out how Google was addressing customer reviews in other areas of search, and suggested steps Google could take to minimize the chance of an online consumer confusing a top result in a search engine results page with the suggestion that the merchant was honest or ethical.

To Google's credit, it appears that by that time they were already on the case, attempting to develop an algorithmic solution that will detect merchants that Google believes "provide a extremely poor user experience", and... presumably prevent them from achieving top search engine rankings. But as Google notes, they won't catch everybody.

But when you're dealing with online merchants, particularly those of which you haven't previously heard, caveat emptor. Check the reviews carefully, keeping in mind that for newer vendors a series of positive reviews may be planted for the purpose of tricking would-be customers. Check the website - not just to see if it looks professional, but to see what it says about the business, its location and phone number. No business name other than the website title? No contact information other than a phone number? Watch out. If you look up the domain name for the store (e.g., through Whois.sc) do you get a real address and contact information, fake information or an anonymous registration? Real stores don't hide.

And if it’s important enough for you to have “designer” handbags, watches, eyeglasses, etc., know up front that a huge percentage of online merchandise is going to be counterfeit or, at best, gray market - it may cost more, but consider shopping through an authorized merchant.

Maybe Your Toyota's Accelerating Because....

You're pressing down on the accelerator instead of the brake?

The U.S. Department of Transportation has analyzed dozens of data recorders from Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles involved in accidents blamed on sudden acceleration and found that at the time of the crashes, throttles were wide open and the brakes were not engaged, people familiar with the findings said.

The results suggest that some drivers who said their Toyota and Lexus vehicles surged out of control were mistakenly flooring the accelerator when they intended to jam on the brakes. But the findings don't exonerate Toyota from two known issues blamed for sudden acceleration in its vehicles: sticky accelerator pedals and floor mats that can trap accelerator pedals to the floor.

Well, no, it would not exonerate Toyota in relation to physical problems that could cause a gas pedal to stick or become entrapped. But so far it appears that there's only one documented accident that has been attributed to gas pedal entrapment, and that case involved the dealer's use of the incorrect floor mats for the vehicle, unsecured by retaining clips.

Doorbuster Sales

Following the death of a Wal-Mart worker, NYC appears poised to require additional security during "major sales". Despite the tragedy, given that security measures appeared to be at least adequate at all stores except the one where the death occurred, it's reasonable to question the necessity of the law.

But if you want to be sure that this won't happen again, is security really the problem? Or is it that the concept of a "doorbuster" sale became too literal. The fact is, when you offer an array of loss leaders designed to attract huge crowds to stores, and offer an additional array of discounts that are only valid for the first few hours of the shopping day, bargain hunters must mass at the doorways at opening time in order to even have a chance for the best deals.

Loss leaders are, of course, quantity limited discounts meant to bring in those big crowds. The idea is that, although few shoppers will be able to take advantage of those discounts, people attracted by the possibility will buy other merchandise. The only thing that differentiates a loss leader from "bait and switch" is that your ads specify that quantities are limited (e.g., "Only 200 available at this price).

If you want to keep crowds from massing at the doorway, classify the advertisement of limited quantity loss leaders as a form of "bait and switch", require issuance of rain checks when quantities run short, and require all specials to be offered through the entire business day. Stores would object, as you would be removing elements that help create the frenzied atmosphere that allows them to clear their shelves of stuff that a calmer crowd would probably leave behind. But you won't have people trampling store clerks, beating up other shoppers, or shooting each other over the possibility of missing that "doorbuster" deal.

George Will to America's Children: Eat Lead!

Not in a "Wild West" sense, but because toy safety isn't a job for the federal government.

In his Denver speech, Barack Obama derided the "discredited Republican philosophy" that he caricatured in four words - "you're on your own." Then he promised to "keep . . . our toys safe."¹ Among the four candidates for national office, perhaps only Palin might give a Madisonian answer - one cognizant of the idea that the federal government's powers are limited because they are enumerated - if asked to identify any provision of the Constitution, other than the First Amendment, that imposes meaningful limits on congressional or executive authority to act.

The biggest threat from imported toys of late? Lead paint. (Not that lead paint is the only think keeping the CPSC busy.)

Well, at least Will doesn't object to clean drinking water. (Yet?)
________
Obama said,

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Defective Products "Made In China"

A number of years ago, the Michigan legislature passed an exceptionally pro-industry "reform" of the state's products liability laws. A significant aspect of the new law was that it severely limited the circumstances in which a distributor or seller (other than the manufacturer) could be liable for selling a defective product.

MCL 600.2947(6) In a product liability action, a seller other than a manufacturer is not liable for harm allegedly caused by the product unless either of the following is true:

(a) The seller failed to exercise reasonable care, including breach of any implied warranty, with respect to the product and that failure was a proximate cause of the person's injuries.

(b) The seller made an express warranty as to the product, the product failed to conform to the warranty, and the failure to conform to the warranty was a proximate cause of the person's harm.

The rash of dangerous and defective product imports from China, particularly products intended for use by babies and children, calls into question the wisdom of this approach which favors willful ignorance over more careful selection and testing of products, and all-but-immunizes everybody involved in importing and selling a defective product manufactured overseas (but you can always go to China and try suing the manufacturer, right? Yeah, right.)

Roller Coasters

I'm not a huge fan of amusement parks, but my wife adores roller coasters.... So it's probably a good thing I don't have a heart condition. (Right, Forbes... tell us something we didn't already know.)

The Epcot Mission Space ride, mentioned in the article, is quite intense. During the simulated lift-off, it's more like being in a centrifuge than on a roller coaster. The article should also add that it's not for the claustrophobic, or for those predisposed to motion sickness. (The ride is pre-stocked with the paper airsickness bags that you normally find on airlines.) It is interesting to note that, as intense as the liftoff feels, it's at a significantly lower G-force (and is shorter in duration) than an actual liftoff. Although you may not believe this after taking the ride, you'll experience more force (but with much less duration) on a typical roller-coaster. I'm writing it, and I'm not sure that I believe it.

Anyway, that's my first, and probably my last, word on roller coasters. (The literal kind, that is - proverbial roller coasters are still fair game.)

Paper Shredders and Baby Bath Seats

A friend of mine, from time to time, will forward me articles on alleged defects in consumer products, and the bizarre injuries that can result. Or which emphasize how, even with an infrequency of injury, some people will argue that otherwise useful products be banned because of the potential for misuse.

I had anticipated that I would not want to leave a baby or small child in the vicinity of an operational paper shredder, for example, but it hadn't occurred to me that a puppy might be inclined to try to lick the shredding mechanism. (Graphic description of injury omitted, but dog lovers: take note.)

But it certainly had occurred to me that the mere fact that a parent uses a baby bath seat does not mean that the parent can ignore the baby, or use that as an excuse ot leave a baby unattended in a bathtub. While I will grant that if you are holding a baby in a bathtub, you are necessarily giving the child direct attention that might not follow if the baby is in a bath seat, not all parents give the baby that level of attention even if the baby is lying in a sink or bathtub. And I haven't personally found that using a bath seat is cause for giving a baby any less attention than any other method of bathing. Bathtub accidents, unfortunately, will happen no matter what associated devices are or are not used. And not one of the cited incidents involved active parental attention directed toward the baby in the bath seat.

Granted, some devices (such as "lawn darts") seem so poorly conceived, and the risk of harm from misuse so great, that you can understand why they should be pulled from the market. And granted, the picture is confused by insurance company propaganda - false stories about people suing after they injure themselves by using a lawn mower as a hedge trimmer, or setting up a ladder on a melting pile of manure, or the pretense that an absurd warning label on a toilet brush is anything more than evidence of manufacture in a non-English-speaking nation or the incompetence of in-house counsel - meant to suggest that manufacturers of perfectly safe products are being sued because of non-foreseeable incidents of absurd misuse. (And it isn't just about products - the same phenomenon is displayed by the Terry Rakoltas, Tipper Gores, and "Parents Television Council"-type organizations, who want to protect me from what they regard as "indecency".)

There is a point where I want the regulators, or those who lobby the regulators to "protect me", to extend at least a modicum of trust in my intelligence.