
Amazon's War on Fake Eclipse Glasses Trips Up Newbie Merchant - mcone
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-15/amazon-s-war-on-fake-eclipse-glasses-trips-up-newbie-merchant
======
j-c-hewitt
I work with Amazon sellers (including on getting suspended sellers
reinstated). I am not sure that his story is the actual story.

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.

~~~
oasisbob
> 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...](https://www.amazon.com/YXGOOD-Treestand-Harness-Climbing-
Firefighting/dp/B011K7FUUG/)

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.

~~~
j-c-hewitt
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.

------
ballenf
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.

~~~
vec
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?

~~~
gamblor956
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.

~~~
bluGill
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.

------
Spivak
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.

~~~
micaksica
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.

~~~
bluGill
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.

~~~
runholm
True, but when making investments like this you shouldn't invest money you
can't afford to lose.

------
tzs
> 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.

------
toxican
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.

~~~
paxy
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.

------
mnm1
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.

------
lathiat
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 :(

------
yahna
> "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.

------
hammock
How to tell if your eclipse glasses are fake?

~~~
sarah2079
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.

~~~
obsurveyor
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.

~~~
tantalor
Wouldn't a faker just steal the name of a manufacturer on the list?

~~~
obsurveyor
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.

~~~
sbov
Your understanding seems wrong:
[https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety](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.

------
fny
Does anyone know of the pros and cons of using these glasses vs using a
pinhole camera?

~~~
Stratoscope
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15006190)

~~~
toxican
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.

~~~
Stratoscope
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_the_solar_eclipse_is_already_altering/dl69aej/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6rkqr0/the_path_of_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6rkqr0/the_path_of_the_solar_eclipse_is_already_altering/dl62ve8/)

I was also involved in a discussion in this Reddit thread:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6lyei5/befor...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6lyei5/before_eclipse_glasses_and_safety_knowledge_did/)

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...](http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-eclipse-
experience-dont-let-that-happen-to-you)

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.

