Amazon Comes Under Fire With Toy Plane Crisis

“The RQ-1 Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which the United States Air Force describes as a MALE (medium-altitude, long-endurance) UAV system. It can serve in a reconnaissance role and fire two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The aircraft, in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen. It is remote-controlled by humans so is therefore not an autonomous aircraft. “

Describing the latest product to feel Amazon users’ wrath, this toy, suitable for ages 3 years and up, is a scale model of an American unmanned aircraft used to kill during combat.  Potentially more of a collector’s item that a toy, the product has received 191 customer reviews so far, most of which are American civilians leaving sarcastic messages about its potential use, or in some cases complaints. One of our favourites is:

“This toy will give your son hours of fun and perhaps even inspire him to grow up and work in Washington so he too can play first-person-shooter games with real people!“

And...

“As much as this toy is fun, it completely misses the joy a child feels when he can wield his own weaponry in close-quarter combat. “

The product is sold using an Amazon shop account by a third-party reseller; as yet, there has been no comment from the reseller, or from Amazon.

So what is Amazon doing about this?

.....

....

...

..

.

That silence represents the nothing which Amazon’s PR team appear to be doing. Having searched Google and the national press websites, it is apparent that Amazon is avoiding dealing with this ‘crisis’... but the question is, should they be?

Should Amazon do anything?

The Amazon web page is still accessible, stating that the item is currently unavailable; this raises the question is it out of stock, or has Amazon decided to remove it because of the comments left?

Whilst we would highly recommend that the reseller removes the listing to prevent damage to their brand, there is the argument that they have met the specific account criteria of Amazon; should Amazon get involved? In the conditions of use, Amazon itself claims ownership of your listings, but not responsibility for them, right here:

“If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant Amazon a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media. You grant Amazon and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such content, if they choose. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that you post; that the content is accurate; that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity; and that you will indemnify Amazon for all claims resulting from content you supply. Amazon has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any activity or content. Amazon takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted by you or any third party.”

So whilst it has a licence over a seller’s content, it does not take responsibility for any controversy. Does this situation warrant its management? Arguably no; the product complies with the guidelines; it is neither illegal nor prohibited, inherently offensive or dangerous. At what point does their responsibility end and that of the purchaser begin? Whilst unfortunate, it may be that the comments platform for this product is the perfect place to express concern and that the decision lies with the seller to remove it and the purchaser to well...  not purchase it!

What do you think?