Is it OK to knowingly sell a faulty product

Question

Using Proton Mail, I tried to email an attorney to ask some questions. Only half the email was sent.Their customer support responds with:> Kindly note that we are aware that the Android app does have this issue. It occurs because the draft message was sent before it could be properly saved. If you wait for a few seconds for the draft to be properly saved, the full message will be sent. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this has caused.In my book this is not OK to charge for a product that causes harm to the end user when you are in full knowledge about this.What are your thoughts?

xanderlewis · Accepted Answer

It depends where you draw the line on &lsquo;faulty&rsquo;. Even Apple sells the iPhone knowing it is riddled with bugs and potential faultiness. I guess you could say that&rsquo;s different from knowing not just that they exist but where they are, but I&rsquo;d be willing to bet that even pieces of software like iOS get released containing unfixed bugs still known to the developers (who hope to fix them all at a later date).

jjgreen · Answer

Rephrase it slightly: "Is is OK to provide an commercial online service which has a bug", in which case I would hope so, or there would be no commercial online services.

smoldesu · Answer

Why ask us? A better question to ask yourself is whether you feel OK knowingly paying for a faulty product.

protonmail · Answer

The issue occurs extremely rarely and has been addressed in our latest beta app, which you can get from Google Play Store. We plan to fully release it as soon as possible.

k310 · Answer

The government takes a very dim view of false or missing product claims. One other that popped up involved falsely labeling "Made in USA"
Shrink label disclaimers have been found coercive and have lost in court, but they persist, though "A software license could be viewed as an unconscionable contract of adhesion". IANAL. Most T&C's are outrageous.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-corporate-executives-conv...
Two Corporate Executives Convicted in First-Ever Criminal Prosecution for Failure to Report Under Consumer Product Safety Act
On Nov. 16, a Los Angeles jury convicted two corporate executives of conspiracy and failure to report information related to defective residential dehumidifiers that had been linked to multiple fires.
Simon Chu, 68, of Chino Hills, California, and Charley Loh, 65, of Arcadia, California, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and failure to furnish information as required by the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
The defective dehumidifiers sold by Chu and Loh’s two corporations were included in multiple recalls of a larger number of defective dehumidifiers manufactured by Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai (Gree Zhuhai) in China. According to the recall notices, more than 450 reported fires and millions of dollars in property damage have been linked to the recalled Gree Zhuhai dehumidifiers.
https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Commissioner/Richard-Trumka/...
Historic Criminal Verdicts Against Executives for Failing to Report Fire Hazards to CPSC
Corporate executives are on notice: It can be a crime not to tell CPSC when your products put consumers at unreasonable risk of death or serious injury—you must share that information with CPSC immediately.
Two former executives of Gree USA Inc. now face possible incarceration. On November 16, 2023, a jury returned guilty verdicts against former CAO Simon Chu and CEO Charley Loh for conspiracy to defraud the CPSC and for knowingly and willfully failing to report what they knew about their defective, fire-prone dehumidifiers. A jury found that they knew their dehumidifiers were defective, dangerous, and could catch fire. The executives also knew that they were required to immediately report the product safety information to CPSC. If CPSC had known about the hazard sooner, it’s possible that at least four deaths from house fires would have been prevented.
These are the first-ever criminal verdicts against executives for failing to report information to CPSC. The use of this powerful deterrent should send the message that when bad actors endanger people by hiding critical safety information, they will be met with unwavering pursuit and severe consequences. This knowledge should deter other executives from withholding the information CPSC needs to protect the American public.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38378399
Judge finds evidence that Tesla, Musk knew about Autopilot defect
---
Software is a jungle. Disclaimers abound, but are they legal or even ethical?