[LeifCarrotson]

Don't pretend that "liability reasons" is due to ethical concerns about the safety of the product.

Someone would buy it off a shelf at Lowes, would take Lowes to court, and Lowes would lose. It wouldn't be profitable.

Conversely, if someone bought a dodgy product from a drop-shipper listing on Amazon and got hurt by it, do you think that Amazon would be successfully sued? Empirically, that happens but they're still profitable and and still not refusing to list products for safety except in the most egregious circumstances. Would you sue the drop-shipper? They'd probably disappear or have zero assets. Would you sue the overseas manufacturer? Good luck with that!

The fact that it's profitable for Amazon and not for Lowes is exactly what the parent meant when they said "...it doesn't seem right that Amazon can sell these to people where Lowes and other hardware stores cannot."

[chucksmash]

> Don't pretend that "liability reasons" is due to ethical concerns about the safety of the product.

Your view point is "the only reason any business might not want to electrocute people is because they've decided it won't be profitable after wrongful death suits"?

Presumably you work for a business. Would you electrocute people if you determined it would be profitable after wrongful death suits?

[inkcapmushroom]

Try asking this question to the Christopher Columbuses and the Purdue Pharma executives of the world.

[culturestate]

> Don't pretend that "liability reasons" is due to ethical concerns about the safety of the product. Someone would buy it off a shelf at Lowes, would take Lowes to court, and Lowes would lose.

Is this not exactly what “liability reasons” implies? Surely if it was an ethical argument they would’ve written “ethical reasons” instead.