• DBT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    6 days ago

    TLDR:

    30 cases, $4,000.

    She got her money back after making a stink in the media.

    • neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 days ago

      I don’t think that company regularly gets orders that big, do they? Maybe when getting a large order, they should contact the buyer to confirm it.

      • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 days ago

        Two thoughts on why it didn’t get flagged

        1. the seller might be used to selling bulk amounts to distributors so 30 cases isn’t unheard of.

        2. Since it was on Amazon, there might not have actually been a human in the loop (except the person who packaged it but its not on them to check stuff like that) until the package actually arrives

        But idk, I just skimmed the article lol

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    IDK what the fuck kind of settings people have on their phones to allow anyone with access to it to do that?
    Any action that requires a payment or money transfer on my phone also requires authentication, and I’m not even sure I can disable that.
    But maybe that’s because I’m in EU?

  • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 days ago

    LaFavers said she was changing some settings on her phone to make sure there’s never another surprise delivery candy crush at home.

    C’mon guys, that joke was easier than taking credit card information from a single parent

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 days ago

    there should be a regulation that businesses who sell to minors over the internet are liable for the mistake. They’re the ones who benefit from such easy ordering, and this is a foreseeable consequence of that.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s just asking to have online shopping become much harder, requiring more identity verification than just having a credit card and an address. Which is maybe beneficial overall; it would cut down on fraud, but I doubt it would be a popular change.

      • Snot Flickerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’m honestly pro-anything-that-reduces-consumption. This would reduce consumption because it would make people consider their purchases more.

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      There should be a regulation that if you don’t secure a device that is later used in a way you don’t want because of lack of said security, you are shit out of luck. - ftfy

      It’s not the fault of the business because your pin code is 1234 (or non-existent). People need to figure shit out. If a child grabs your car keys and then crashes the family sedan, it’s not Toyota’s fault; same thing.

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    ABC couldn’t just have said “found herself in a tough spot”, absolutely had to shoehorn “sticky” in with a pile driver