No more 2nd Hand toy sales in the US ?

[Omega Supreme]

Hi sorry if this is in the wrong place, just saw it this morning and wondered how true it is.

http://www.tfw2005.com/radicons-customs/the-radicons-blog-18/new-law-restricts-re-sale-of-kids-products--no-more-commissions-1512766496/

Also if this is true, will Australia be putting into effect a similar law ?

And does this mean that 2nd hand toys (eg G1 Transformers) are going to disappear from ebay come Feb 10th ?

[Sky Shadow]

Hi sorry if this is in the wrong place, just saw it this morning and wondered how true it is.

http://www.tfw2005.com/radicons-customs/the-radicons-blog-18/new-law-restricts-re-sale-of-kids-products--no-more-commissions-1512766496/

Also if this is true, will Australia be putting into effect a similar law ?

And does this mean that 2nd hand toys (eg G1 Transformers) are going to disappear from ebay come Feb 10th ?

It's certainly intriguing. Maybe people in the US will have to buy all their second-hand toys from us. :D

[d*r*j*]

From what I gather it just means that second hand toys are not to be sold to children. So people who sell used toys will be more inclined to push their product through the adult collectors market.

[Demonac]

I found this article from snopes.com regarding this issue:

snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp

[GoktimusPrime]

From what I gather it just means that second hand toys are not to be sold to children.
I don't see anything that suggests that at all. The article states that the new law would restrict the sales of used children's products, not sales of used children's products to children. Remember that parents often by products for children so the law would have to target adults as well as kids - as it reads, the bill will probably be indiscriminate of age.

Now because it says "children's products" I would imagine that Transformers produced and marketed specifically at non-children (i.e.: ages 15+) would not fall under that definition which should mean that things like Takara's (but not Hasbro's) Masterpieces, Binaltech, Binaltech Asterisk, KISS Play, Music Label, reissues (e.g.: Encore) and other 'high end collectibles' (as TakaraTOMY calls them) would be exempt since Takara(TOMY) have always marketed them at the 15+ age range, and not at children. Hasbro's reissues, Masterpieces and Alternators on the other hand were placed very specifically in the children's market (age 8+) so they would fall under these new restrictions.

[Omega Supreme]

Now because it says "children's products" I would imagine that Transformers produced and marketed specifically at non-children (i.e.: ages 15+) would not fall under that definition which should mean that things like Takara's (but not Hasbro's) Masterpieces, Binaltech, Binaltech Asterisk, KISS Play, Music Label, reissues (e.g.: Encore) and other 'high end collectibles' (as TakaraTOMY calls them) would be exempt since Takara(TOMY) have always marketed them at the 15+ age range, and not at children. Hasbro's reissues, Masterpieces and Alternators on the other hand were placed very specifically in the children's market (age 8+) so they would fall under these new restrictions.

I get your meaning about how Takara produce their items for the adult collector market. So take for example Encore Optimus, the encore would be a "high end collectable", but the G1 version, because when it was released it was aimed to sell to children, what class would that fall under ? Bar the release date & a few paint changes, its the same toy.

[griffin]

Second hand toy sales are apparently excempt. And if not, restricting sales to adults would occur.

[Lint]

Wow this is a pretty dumb law in response to lead poisoning. I dont want to be inflammatory but I suppose they need dumb laws to protect the proportion of the population they've transformed into complete morons.

[griffin]

As bad as the litigeous American society is, we are getting just as bad. People will look for ways to sue over something that shouldn't need a warning label or law to alert people of the 'apparent' danger. It gets to the point when you have warning labels on items that just have you wondering, why would anyone do that, to need a warning against doing it. There should be a point where common sense should over-ride the need for a warning against the obvious, and have these people punished for wasting the courts time, and taxpayer money in 'fixing up' these things, which ultimately affects the rest of us consumers with higher prices, or removal of goods that can no longer be 'legally safe' to sell.

[SofaMan]

The snopes article has pretty much declared this one false:



In other words, used children's items offered for resale after 10 February 2009 must still meet the new CPSIA standards regarding lead and phthalate content, but vendors will not have to have such items tested and certified. Vendors should therefore "avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit."

While the CPSC says "Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties," a reasonable interpretation of that statement as it applies to the sale of used goods would be that the agency will focus its attentions on those retailers who blatantly take a cavalier attitude towards the used childrens' items in their inventory by continuing to vend merchandise items they have good reason to suspect contain lead.


http://snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp

[Golden Phoenix]

As bad as the litigeous American society is, we are getting just as bad. People will look for ways to sue over something that shouldn't need a warning label or law to alert people of the 'apparent' danger. It gets to the point when you have warning labels on items that just have you wondering, why would anyone do that, to need a warning against doing it. There should be a point where common sense should over-ride the need for a warning against the obvious, and have these people punished for wasting the courts time, and taxpayer money in 'fixing up' these things, which ultimately affects the rest of us consumers with higher prices, or removal of goods that can no longer be 'legally safe' to sell.

People like to blame others for their problems. That way, it's not their fault that they did something stupid like that girl in the bakery on the worksafe add.
Plus it doesn't help that their are lawyers who insist that they were victims.

[GoktimusPrime]

+1. This is something Obama touched on in his inauguration speech.

[SofaMan]

Plus it doesn't help that their are lawyers who insist that they were victims.

This is something of a problem with the system of legal training in America. As there is no professional college imposing reasonable limits on who can be accredited in the profession (like the Law Society or College of Surgeons), pretty much anyone can train to be a lawyer. Then you end up with way more lawyers than a society can reasonably sustain, since it's perceived to be a prestige occupation.

At this point, all the less experienced or skilled lawyers who can't get 'good' work end up being "ambulance-chasers" and bottom feeders, just to make ends meet.