The District of Columbia sued Amazon on Wednesday, alleging the company secretly stopped providing its fastest delivery service to residents of two predominantly Black neighborhoods while still charging millions of dollars for a membership that promises the benefit.

The complaint filed in District of Columbia Superior Court revolves around Amazon’s Prime membership, which costs consumers $139 per year or $14.99 per month for fast deliveries — including one-day, two-day and same-day shipments — along with other enhancements.

In mid-2022, the lawsuit alleges, the Seattle-based online retailer imposed what it called a delivery “exclusion” on two low-income ZIP codes in the district — 20019 and 20020 — and began relying exclusively on third-party delivery services such as UPS and the U.S. Postal Service, rather than its own delivery systems.

  • capital@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    They had attacks on their drivers.

    DC wants them to warn customers that that can’t get the full service depending on zip but imagine what the next headline reads. Probably something like: “Amazon’s racist policy disproportionately excludes black zip codes from Prime delivery service”.

    Fucked if they do, fucked if they don’t.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      7 days ago

      Did they refund the Prime subscription of these residents, or otherwise make up for unfulfilled promises?

      They’d certainly be less fucked if they stopped stealing from their minority customers.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        True. And they should.

        Doesn’t change the next headline. “Amazon refuses to sell Prime delivery to black people”.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          If only there was something a multibillion dollar company could do to improve the situation… nothing?

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        That would be best, but you can have multiple addresses in your acct. So say, if you happily used your acct at other addresses, then input an address in a risky zone, what should they do? Fractionally discount you at the end of the year maybe for that purchase vs all other purchases? Offer you to cancel at a prorate?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      And the drivers wouldn’t get attacked if they didn’t deliver packages as quickly? That makes no sense.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Reading helps.

        In mid-2022, the lawsuit alleges, the Seattle-based online retailer imposed what it called a delivery “exclusion” on two low-income ZIP codes in the district — 20019 and 20020 — and began relying exclusively on third-party delivery services such as UPS and the U.S. Postal Service, rather than its own delivery systems

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          UPS and USPS are better services anyway. I have things delivered to a work address and Amazon is the only one who seems to have trouble understanding where packages go.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Here I just wish I could get 2 day shipping again. Looked the other day and it was same day delivery… Then updated the address, and it was 6 day delivery. Not like I want to spend my money on Amazon, but I ended up going to Walmart instead… Not really better.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          You’re right, I didn’t read this time. I usually do, but this time I am guilty.

          Also, just risking other drivers instead of your own is supremely shitty of them.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            And if they ignored the problem you’d be criticizing Amazon for failing to care for their employees (contractors).

            A private company isn’t well positioned to actually solve the root issue here. All they can do is remove their employees (contractors) from danger.

            Amazon’s shitty for other reasons. But I don’t think this is one of them.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              7 days ago

              And if they ignored the problem you’d be criticizing Amazon for failing to care for their employees (contractors).

              You’re right. Because failing to take care of their employees and putting other people’s employees at risk in order to stop their employees from getting attacked are both reprehensible.

              Do USPS employees deserve to be attacked but Amazon employees don’t?

              If Dominos drivers kept getting attacked so Dominos just contracted out to Doordash to let them get attacked instead, I would hope you would think that neither situation was acceptable.

              • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                So is the solution then to be “Amazon withdraws all shipping services for <neighborhood>”? “Amazon sends armed PMCs to <neighborhood>, terrorizing locals”? What’s the solution?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Why do I have to have a solution to find either solution, which puts someone in danger, unacceptable?

                  Why is putting USPS employees in danger acceptable to you?

                  • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    It’s not, I’m just trying to figure out what the path out of what appears to be a no-win scenario according to that standard. Just stop all deliveries altogether?

              • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 days ago

                How is that your take away? It’s either an undeliverable address because the customer or a dog has threatened a postal worker, or they are going there at least 5 times a week anyway.

                Are you saying some people or communities just don’t deserve mail?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  I’m saying just saying “let the post office deal with it” is the same as saying g “it’s ok if postal carriers get attacked or even murdered.”

                  Or do you have a solution to that which the USPS can do but Amazon can’t?

                  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 days ago

                    Amazon can, it’s just too expensive for them to want to do it. This is the reason the postal service exists, if it became privatized half of us would stop getting mail delivery, at least at any kind of reasonable price.

                    Sounds like you just don’t want people you deem undesirable to receive services.