[johnfactorial]

> But it's a risk you're taking buying a product from a fledgling internet-based startup.

This is my problem. It is not reasonable to expect a purchase of a product online to be a gamble, a risk that you will get nothing in exchange for your money. No matter whether they're internet based, no matter how old they are, if a company offers a product for sale, it should not be "risky" to purchase it.

The comment I replied to said we shouldn't burden the courts with taking the people behind such companies to task. But if we don't, there's nothing stopping them from doing it again and again.

[jberm123]

When I buy a product from a brick and mortar store, there is NO risk to not receiving the product.

When I buy a product online, this is ALWAYS a risk, no matter what.

Your solution uses my tax dollars to make online businesses more competitive with brick and mortar stores, thereby making it more difficult to run a profitable brick and mortar store/mom and pop shop.

>No matter whether they're internet based, no matter how old they are, if a company offers a product for sale, it should not be "risky" to purchase it.

Your solution offloads some risk from the consumer onto everyone else. I agree with the comment, you put the burden on the courts and by extension, me, to pay taxes to support other people's poor ability to reason about what businesses may or may not be scams and encourage risk-taking buying products from risky businesses.

>But if we don't, there's nothing stopping them from doing it again and again.

Again, informed consumers... Accept you're taking a risk buying a product from a fledgling internet-based startup, a risk that wouldn't just go away even if we all incur the large expense getting the courts involved.

We're both basically just saying everything we've already said. No sense in going in circles