New study accuses Amazon of skirting state law by allowing minors to purchase these dangerous items

New York Post - Apr 10th, 2025

A recent report from the Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI) at the University of San Diego School of Law has raised significant concerns about Amazon's compliance with California laws protecting minors. The report alleges that Amazon is not effectively implementing age verification measures for products that minors are prohibited from purchasing under California law, such as BB guns, spray paint, and tobacco paraphernalia. The study highlights several loopholes that allow minors to bypass age restrictions, including inputting false information during the checkout process. CAI criticizes Amazon for not taking sufficient steps to ensure child safety, thereby gaining an unfair market advantage over competitors who adhere to these laws.

In response to these allegations, an Amazon spokesperson asserted that customer safety and trust are their top priorities and that they enforce age controls seriously. They claimed that Amazon requires customers to provide birthdates and ID information for applicable products and investigates any inaccuracies. The issue has caught the attention of California State Senator Eloise Reyes, who has proposed a bill, SB 659, to strengthen enforcement against illegal online sales by holding e-businesses accountable and empowering parents to take legal action. This development underscores the ongoing challenge of regulating online commerce to ensure it aligns with child protection laws, emphasizing the need for robust age verification practices in the digital marketplace.

Amazon Consumer Protection Age Verification Child Safety Children's Advocacy Institute California Law Sb 659 Eloise Reyes Online Retailers

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-rounded examination of the allegations against Amazon regarding their compliance with California law on the sale of restricted items to minors. It effectively presents both the claims from the Children’s Advocacy Institute and Amazon's counter-responses, offering a balanced perspective on the issue. The topic is timely and of significant public interest, addressing concerns about online safety and consumer protection. However, the article could benefit from additional independent verification of the claims and more detailed explanations of the legal context to enhance transparency and accuracy. Overall, the article successfully engages readers by highlighting a relevant and potentially impactful issue, while maintaining clarity and neutrality in its presentation.

Accuracy

The article presents several claims about Amazon's compliance with California law and its age verification processes. The story is based on a report by the Children’s Advocacy Institute (CAI), which alleges that Amazon is not adhering to §1798.99.1 by allowing minors to purchase restricted items. This claim is specific and verifiable, but the article does not provide independent verification beyond the CAI report. Additionally, the article references a 2018 incident where a minor purchased a BB gun, but it does not confirm if this issue persists. Amazon's response is included, asserting their commitment to customer safety and age verification, which adds a layer of balance but does not independently verify the claims. Overall, while the article is based on a credible report, it lacks corroborating evidence from other sources to fully substantiate its claims.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both the Children’s Advocacy Institute and Amazon, offering a balanced view of the issue. The CAI's claims are detailed, highlighting potential legal and safety concerns, while Amazon's response emphasizes their policies and procedures. This inclusion of multiple viewpoints helps to mitigate bias, allowing readers to understand both sides of the argument. However, the article could improve balance by including perspectives from legal experts or consumer protection agencies to provide additional context on the implications of the claims made.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey the main points. It logically presents the claims made by the Children’s Advocacy Institute, followed by Amazon's response, allowing readers to easily follow the narrative. The use of direct quotes adds clarity and helps to convey the perspectives of the involved parties accurately. The article maintains a neutral tone, which aids in comprehension and ensures that the information is accessible to a general audience. However, the inclusion of more detailed background information on the specific legal requirements mentioned could further enhance clarity.

Source quality

The primary source of the article is a report from the Children’s Advocacy Institute, a credible organization affiliated with the University of San Diego School of Law. This lends authority to the claims made in the article. Additionally, the article includes statements from Amazon, providing a counter-perspective. However, the article could benefit from additional sources, such as independent legal experts, to further validate the claims and provide a more comprehensive view of the issue. The reliance on a single report limits the depth of source variety and could affect the overall reliability of the story.

Transparency

The article is transparent in its presentation of the claims made by the Children’s Advocacy Institute and Amazon's response. It clearly attributes the findings to the CAI report and includes direct quotes from both the CAI and Amazon representatives. However, the article lacks detailed explanation of the methodology used by the CAI to arrive at their conclusions, which could affect the reader's ability to fully assess the validity of the claims. Providing more information on how the CAI conducted their study would enhance transparency and allow readers to better understand the basis of the claims.