Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Technology

Amazon Dash Buttons Ruled Illegal In Germany (gizmodo.com) 141

Posted by BeauHD from the tokens-of-capitalism dept.
Amazon Dash buttons have been ruled illegal in Germany for making it too easy to buy Amazon products. Germany consumer advocacy group, Verbraucherzentrale NRW, "complained that Amazon's terms enable the company to switch out an ordered product with something else, and the buttons break laws protecting shoppers from buying things they are not fully informed about," reports Gizmodo. From the report: At first the wifi-connected buttons enabled users to quickly buy basic home goods and groceries -- like detergent, paper towels, macaroni and cheese, and bottled water. But Amazon has since added dozens more, from Slim Jims to Red Bull to Calvin Kline underwear. "We are always open to innovation. But if innovation means that the consumer is put at a disadvantage and price comparisons are made difficult then we fight that," Wolfgang Schuldzinski, leader of Verbraucherzentrale NRW, said to in a public statement.

The Munich court has sided with the organization, and ruled that the Dash buttons break consumer protection rules. The Verbraucherzentrale NRW statement suggests Amazon can't appeal the decision. But an Amazon spokesperson told Gizmodo that the company believes the button and its app don't violate German law, and Amazon is going to appeal. "The decision is not only against innovation, it also prevents customers from making an informed choice for themselves about whether a service like Dash Button is a convenient way for them to shop," the spokesperson said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Dash Buttons Ruled Illegal In Germany More

Amazon Dash Buttons Ruled Illegal In Germany

Comments Filter:

  • Those laws are in place for a reason (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Friday January 11, 2019 @09:19PM (#57947868)
    The authors formulation suggests that he thinks Amazon's dash was just "making it easy" for people to buy stuff. The same could be said about the noble gambling industry, which also only makes it as easy as possible for people to give away their money. And yet, regulations regarding such "offers" exist in most parts of the world.

  • Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Why are they unable to create their own popular online shop?

    For that matter, the entire EU seems to be lacking a proper Amazon competitor. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is the case. There are some bright minds posting on Slashdot - does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

    • Re: Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, look up a thing called works council. Germany and France are the harshest about this, and it mandates ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy to make a minor change in any work process.

    • Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Friday January 11, 2019 @09:32PM (#57947940) Homepage

      Why are they unable to create their own popular online shop?

      For that matter, the entire EU seems to be lacking a proper Amazon competitor. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is the case. There are some bright minds posting on Slashdot - does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

      Amazon have multiple branches in Europe made of up entire European companies they bought out for competing against them. Being headquatered and registered in Europe, what makes you thing Amazon Europe is in anyway American?

    • Re:Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Friday January 11, 2019 @09:37PM (#57947958)
      Well, with 2.7E+9 Euro revenue per year online retailer "Otto" is certainly much smaller than Amazon, might be because they actually pay taxes, higher wages, and do not facilitate fraud and trafficking through some shady "marketplace" as successfully as Amazon does.

      • Otto is just one company. There are several like it in the EU also with >$1bn revenue. That's just the thing. Amazon has plenty of competitors in the EU, just the antitrust laws prevent them from becoming the anti-competitive monsters that Amazon is.

    • Re: Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Your premise is wrong. There is no benefit for the consumer to having one single huge online retailer (like Amazon is in the USA) compared to healthy competition between a large number of webshops (like in Europe).

    • Re: Where is Germany's answer to Amazon? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Norwegian here. We have multiple online stores to choose from, it's just that none of them have a multi-national near-monopoly status like Amazon. For instance, every book store that used to only sell books via physical shops have had an online shop for a decade now (Norli, Schibsted, Akademika, etc.) Similarly, if you want to buy electronics, we have several local suppliers that ship things over the internet after you order them (Komplett.no, ElkjÃp, etc.) So I think the answer is that we have several

    • Why are they unable to create their own popular online shop?

      For that matter, the entire EU seems to be lacking a proper Amazon competitor. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is the case. There are some bright minds posting on Slashdot - does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

      They have found whining bitching and moaning to be more in their style.

      But seriously - it is a bit of a conundrum. I've asked the same question many times. Especially in Germany, where they have long been able to turn out amazing engineering. Seems that minds that can do that can produce an online shopping experience that would beat all other online shopping experiences.

      But hey, let's ban things, institute weird laws presumably to protect people, and try to force the world to bend to their will. How

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dave420 ( 699308 )

        There are plenty of online shops in the EU. Due to regulation they haven't all been gobbled up and become one massive shop.

        The law in question isn't weird. You can push your Amazon button and get a substitute product. One you didn't explicitly agree to order. You weren't informed about what this replacement is, and can't compare prices as it's a mystery product. How is that weird?

    • does anybody have a theory for why Europe cannot seem to come up with their own online shopping portal?

      Europe has plenty, (plenty meaning plentiful and implying plurals). You just haven't heard of them because Europe has strong consumer focused antitrust laws that prevent single companies from becoming the anti-competitive behemoths that the USA allows.

      The fact that the EU doesn't have a company the size of Amazon is a feature, not a flaw, and a damn good one at that.

  • Effing joke. You have to buy the buttons, and if they sell you something you didn't want return it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If I buy a button to buy X and they ship me Y, they're committing fraud. At what point should "return it" be some sort of justification for it? I have a better idea: if you buy a button to buy X and they ship you Y, you get to keep Y for free. At what point should we at any point make it easier for companies to engage in any activity that fucks over the consumer? Oh, right, because the government daring to step in when one person tries to scam^W "engage in capitalism with" another is some sort of shock

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dissy ( 172727 )

      Effing joke. You have to buy the buttons, and if they sell you something you didn't want return it.

      It's more hilarious than that.
      When you set the button up on your wifi, you have to link the button to a product on amazon for it to order.

      So one has to purchase the button, install a smartphone app, give the button their wifi password, explicitly link it to a particular product, then push the button.

      Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product they linked the button to on their site after setting it up with a password to their wifi on a

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product they linked the button to

        Reading comprehension fail, it was right there in the summary: "Amazon's terms enable the company to switch out an ordered product with something else"

        Perhaps you would like to have Amazon sent you something else after "going through all that effort and work" to link the button to a specific product, but most sane people would expect Amazon to ship the product that was linked to, instead of something else.

      • Please do try to read TFS first. Yeah yeah I muse be new yere.

        Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product

        From TFS:

        "complained that Amazon's terms enable the company to switch out an ordered product with something else,

        see?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by dissy ( 172727 )

          That would be your problem.
          I did read the summary, and the linked article, and the watch groups public complaint. They simply don't agree with each other.

          The article correctly points out the problem. The watch groups lawsuit doesn't mention that, nor does the judges ruling. That is what makes it such a cluster fuck worth pointing out as such.

          In fact I would be perfectly happy with having amazon clarifying the language of their terms.
          As-is that implies you may one day press your "hefty trash bags" button

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            As-is that implies you may one day press your "hefty trash bags" button and receive a set of toenail clippers or something.

            Actually, that's exactly what it means. You've never seen Amazon incorrectly link two unrelated products and have them share reviews? Then you haven't been on Amazon very long. :-D

            But in all seriousness, even if Amazon does this, you can always return it, and as the reason, specify that it was not the product you ordered, and they'll pay for the shipping and everything, so this is mos

      • Re:LOL Protecting adults from themselves again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday January 12, 2019 @07:17AM (#57949162) Homepage Journal

        What you missed is that Europe has strong laws for "distance selling", i.e. buying stuff on the internet.

        In a physical shop you can see and examine the goods. On the internet all you get is a stock photo of the item and a promise that it will match the description. If it doesn't you can return it. I'm not sure about Germany but in the UK you have 2 weeks to change your mind and Amazon pays the return postage. You only need return the item, self-destructing packaging etc doesn't get them off the hook.

        It goes further than that though. In this case the problem is that by pressing the Dash button you indicate you want a particular item at a particular price you were offered once. Amazon can substitute whatever it likes for that item and charge you whatever price it has today. Amazon abuses that by slowly ramping up prices and substituting inferior stuff.

        The ruling is basically saying that Amazon needs to stop altering the deal after the customer has accepted it. They could probably fix it just by emailing the customer with price changes and subs ahead of time, with a 24 hour grace period for people who pushed the button before seeing the mail.

      • Perhaps the defending party should have explained that process in court ...

    • Big corp can financially and massively comes with scheme to give the false impression or not deliver what is expected. Joe public does not have the resource to either document/study/understand every such a scheme and their result, neither the financial power to fight corp. Thus in all countries, SANE countries not beholden to do blow job to corp, there is a form of consumer protection. If you don't like it, too bad for you, most of us recognize why such laws are in places.

  • Politicians... (Score:5, Funny)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Friday January 11, 2019 @09:26PM (#57947902)
    How is pushing a Dash button different than electing a politican? You make your selection, expecting one thing, but you might get something different, but close. Maybe the German courts should outlaw politicians, too.

    • To be fair the Germans have a long an convoluted political process that normally results on coalition negotiations. The Australians on the other hand, man we swap prime ministers more frequently than we test our smoke detectors.

  • reading (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 )
    It's not a problem that a country wants to make sure its citizens are fully informed before buying a product, get over it already. *GASP* oh no they'll have to click a few times and... READ! I can see why the Americans in the crowd are revolting.

    • The customer did read, and clicked... and bought himself an Amazon Dash button.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      There is no power an government can't take over citizens that fluffernutter won't defend.

      • Re:reading (Score:4, Insightful)

        by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday January 12, 2019 @04:35AM (#57948906) Journal

        There is no power an government can't take over citizens that fluffernutter won't defend.

        Yeah enfocing consumer potection laws == govpocalypse

        personally, I prefer to live in a civilised wold where there are rules and regulations that keep it civilised. If I ever get tired of pesk laws, I'll up sticks and move to the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo where there's no government to interfere with, well, anything really.

        What's interesting is you're not objecting to the massive amount of power amazon has been granted by the government with its limited liability protection. It seems your libertarianism only really swings one way and is really more corpratism.

        • Owch.

        • personally, I prefer to live in a civilised wold where there are rules and regulations that keep it civilised.

          False dichotomy. There's a lot of room between anarchy and where we are today, and one could reasonably choose a point in between those two without being a radical.

          There are only three things we need rules and regulations against: harm, fraud, and deprivation. We can argue about where the lines should be, and how much text is required to cover all of the cases, and even how much we should protect people from themselves. But Amazon was very clear on how the devices functioned, and they are also very understa

          • False dichotomy.

            Hyperbole and sarcasm. I know the attitude of the perosn I'm responding to.

            There are only three things we need rules and regulations against: harm, fraud, and deprivation.

            Why those three?

            But Amazon was very clear on how the devices functioned, and they are also very understanding about returns.

            That is not in and of itself sufficient: the terms have to be legal as well.

            • There are only three things we need rules and regulations against: harm, fraud, and deprivation.

              Why those three?

              Because those are the only three things that you can do to a person. You can damage them, you can deceive them into making poor decisions based on your false information, or you can take something away from them or stand in the way of their getting it. Anything else is something someone does to themselves. Fraud is real, but there was no fraud here.

              • Firstly, you've provided a good justification, but not WHY they're needed in the deeper sense. Like why is it important to prevent harm, fraud and deprivation. what's the underlying philosoph there?

                Because those are the only three things that you can do to a person.

                Those are already the basis of many rules and regulations already. Even those awful religion inspired controlling ones are supposedly done for the good of the person on the receiving end, in other words to regulate against harm. Take the anti-ga

                • The philosophy is that society doesn't function if you don't maintain it, and society is made up of individuals. People pushing a button for glad bags and getting hefty bags doesn't threaten society, especially if you can return the hefty bags.

                  • The philosophy is that society doesn't function if you don't maintain it, and society is made up of individuals.

                    Yes, I agree with that. But that implies more than just protecting individuals, it also implies some sort of need to make society function too, though of course the two are tied together.

                    Don't however confuse an attempt an imprefect rule to prevent harm with something tht's not designed to do so. Perfect is the enemny of good and if we insist on perfection or nothing will will end up with nothing

                    • What propotion of people does it have to affect before it's worth legislating?

                      Well, the questions are how much does it cost, and how much is being spent to prevent it? Because in this case it's not costing much since people can send things back (via trucks that are already in the neighborhood) and because it's not happening much to begin with. At least, so it appears. I'm open to statistics which challenge that idea. How's about just set some standards as to how much effort people have to spend to inform you of terms and conditions? No small print, anything which could be considered

                    • How's about just set some standards as to how much effort people have to spend to inform you of terms and conditions? No small print, anything which could be considered weaseling has to be done in large print up front in your advertisement to the point that it's an advertised feature.

                      That would be a start. Though in the EU we have strong consumer rights so that means you can be pretty sure about a lot of things regardless of what the small print suggests. I think that's a pretty good system.

                      You can walk int

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          I'm not saying ... any of those thing. What I'm saying is that there's to government power that he won't defend. You're rather the same. Oh, there's always an argument why it's good, of course, of course, but the conclusion is always the same with you guys. "Yup, it totally good for government to take this one more inch of power."

          • Please explain what power they are gaining over their citizens by forcing all of them to be more knowledgeable and informed when they purchase products? What is the evil motivation? I'm dying to hear it, because it seems to me that a government with plans to rule with abuse would want their citizens less informed, not more informed.

            • I'm afraid you are using the wrong system of logic. Remember you need to build a system of logic on axioms. Once the axioms are in place you use them to reach conclusions. So for example in this case we have:

              Fundamental axioms:

              1. gubmint is teh evul

              Proposition:

              this law is the government doing something bad.

              Proof:

              Follows directly from axiom 1.

              See?

              • This doesn't answer my question.

                • This doesn't answer my question.

                  Well no of course it doesn't. You asked someone to explain his reasoning, but who is operating with the axiom that the government is evil. The only explanations you will get back are that of course what it's doing is bad because the government is by definition evil.

                  IOW if you want anything approaching reasoning, you asked the wrong person because there is no reasoning behind his stance.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by lgw ( 121541 )

              You can'y buy this product. It's not good for you. You're not smart enough to decide. Your betters must decide for you what's best for you.

          • I'm not saying ... any of those thing.

            You jumped straight from "this seems fine" to "there's to government power that he won't defend". You clearly don't like gvovernment powers and arenaive about it so you'll have to put up with hyperbole and sarcasm from me.

            You're rather the same.

            And now, to defend your argument, you start making up demonstrable lies.

            the conclusion is always the same with you guys

            Again, more lies.

            Why do you have to lie about me in order to make an argument? That's a strong indication you

  • Key difference (Score:3)

    by enriquevagu ( 1026480 ) on Friday January 11, 2019 @10:29PM (#57948150)

    Pushing a button in a screenless device does not show the current price of the item you pretend to buy, which may differ from the price it used to be when you acquired the button. And if you do not have elephant memory, you do not even remember the original price.

    Seems like a fair ruling to me.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Pushing a button in a screenless device does not show the current price of the item you pretend to buy, which may differ from the price it used to be when you acquired the button. And if you do not have elephant memory, you do not even remember the original price.

      Seems like a fair ruling to me.

      And quantity, too.

      The dash buttons don't say anything about quantity or price. You may have ordered a 24-pack of paper towels for $10 and got the button, but who's to say that the next time you push it, it's not a 24-

  • Get out and shop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Friday January 11, 2019 @11:25PM (#57948300)
    If you need a dash button there's something seriously wrong with you.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • If you need a dash button there's something seriously wrong with you.

      It's a good thing you don't get to decide what I do and freedom is still a thing.

      Because there's nothing as big as a waste of time to get in the car and drive 5 miles to closest grocery store for laundry detergent when I can press my dash button and have it tomorrow morning and use that hour of my time for something else.

  • If you want to check out some crazy "everything for consumers" go and try pay online the motorway toll for Austria. You need to do it 18 days in advance. Because the customer has rights, needs two weeks to think, plus three days for the (snail) mail to reach them (yes, they are thinking you pay the motorway online and then after two weeks send a letter saying you don't agree to it anymore). And because you could change your mind in two weeks you are not allowed to pay online the toll for today. Or tomorrow.

  • He ordered truckloads of condoms using a electric toothbrush.

  • This actually was already an appeal and it was found to be lacking. Hence an appeal to a higher court was not allowed. German courts can do that. The only appeal Amazon could do is to the German supreme court, with absolutely no chances to even be heard.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close