Laws governing the use of social media, designed to limit access by minors, have been enacted in several countries recently (see the abstract “Australia Bans Social Media for Children Younger than 16 Years,” from June 2025). Although gaming platforms technically are not subject to this legislation, Roblox has decided to introduce age verification for all users in the region, seeking to reduce the risk that children enter into interactions with unfamiliar adults. The rollout will include not just Australia and New Zealand but also the Netherlands, whose Authority for Consumers and Markets has raised concerns about Roblox’s compliance with the EU Digital Services Act. The verification system requires copies of official identification cards, along with a selfie of the user to confirm their identity. The technology then sorts confirmed participants into age-specific categories and limits certain features and interactions for younger participants. Although Roblox already had established parental controls, filtered chat requests, and conducted automated monitoring of messages, it also has come in for consistent criticism, along with several lawsuits, for its failure to enforce age verification requirements. Allegations of child endangerment are serious concerns for a platform on which an estimated one-third of accounts, or about 40 million users worldwide, belong to consumers younger than 13 years of age. In announcing the new system, Roblox described it as a “signal of trust” and called on potential development partners to take similar steps. But the platform’s choice to introduce the verification initiative only in regions that already have imposed new age-based regulations raises some skepticism of the trustworthiness of its own intentions.
Sources: Jenny Gross, “Roblox, Where Kids Game and Chat, Will Analyze Their Faces to Verify Age,” The New York Times, November 21, 2025; Charlotte Van Campenhout, “Dutch Regulator to Probe Roblox Over Risks to Minors,” Reuters, January 30, 2026.
Retailers set their own rules and store policies. But they also function in the presence of other rules, which actually remain unspoken and might be called norms or expectations of proper social etiquette. For example, a retailer might establish a standard that says the customer is always right but also insist that, for shoppers, you break it, you buy it. Different social norms support each of these standards, which can create a tricky situation for retailers. When damage occurs, should stores insist on holding customers responsible for the costs, or should they acquiesce and recognize that accidents happen, for which customers cannot be blamed?
Because no universal, simple solution exists, employees in the store often must navigate each situation in the moment, among the conflicting pulls of social norms, good manners, and legal recourse. In such a situation, hypothetical cases can help establish some sense of potential resolutions, by outlining the various considerations that need to be addressed.
The humor writer John Hodgman offers just such insights, weighing in on the ethics of a low-stakes, nearly universally familiar shopping situation: the grocery store accident. That is, a grocery store shopper accidently spills a carton of blueberries to the floor, after having paid for them. The shopper takes responsibility for the loss, cleans up the berries, and moves on, but his spouse wants to ask the store for a refund of the cost of the carton. Hodgman weighs the case through the lens of societal norms and agrees with the shopper that the responsible party is the one who should bear the cost of the damaged product.
But what if the spill happened before purchase? Should a shopper who drops a carton of blueberries be forced to pay for them, even though they will be unable to consume them? According to a legal advice site, the store could not have the shopper arrested for refusing to pay for something that has been accidentally damaged. An accident is not a crime. Nor may a retail location bar a customer from leaving until they pay for accidental damage. Doing so even might constitute false imprisonment, which is illegal.
Were a retailer really determined to be compensated for its loss though, it could take the clumsy customer to civil court, claiming negligence that resulted in loss. The exact criteria for negligence is ambiguous and depends on the situation. Furthermore, realistically, most store owners would not be willing to incur the expense and effort needed to recoup the cost of a carton of blueberries. The point though is that some avenue for recourse does exist, in extreme versions of this situation.
Despite their different views, these perspectives suggest a similar, underlying insight: Regardless of company policy, the outcome of any given situation likely will be determined by its unique details. Had the spouse been present during the initial interaction, and demanded compensation for the accidentally spilled blueberries, the store likely would have replaced the box, in the hope of placating a loyal customer, even without any legal requirement to do so, and even if its policy required the customer to take responsibility.
Furthermore, in this case, the shopper declined to request compensation and took responsibility for his mistake. The outcome was thus determined by the consumer, so neither the store nor its employees needed to make difficult decisions. But in another situation, with a less cooperative shopper, the choices made ultimately should take into consideration not only norms, laws, and store policies but also what is best for the business’s long-term profit.
Discussion Questions
What variations in this situation would make it the retailer’s responsibility?
How could similar hypothetical cases help retailers make decisions about other store policies? Describe a possible usage.
Sources: John Hodgman, “What Should Happen When You Spill Blueberries at the Store?,” The New York Times, July 11, 2025; “If You Break It, Must You Buy It?,” FindLaw, March 21, 2019.
When it was first introduced, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) National Do Not Call Registry radically altered the marketing landscape. It substantially constrained the entire telemarketing sector, by making it illegal to place unsolicited calls to consumers who had indicated their disinterest, by signing up for the registry. Today, annoying, unsolicited calls still might occur, but they are far fewer than was the case in the past.
This dramatic shift in the prevalence of telemarketing calls might explain the strong reactions of consumers in Indiana who accused the fast-fashion retailer Shein of sending them mass marketing texts, despite their presence on the registry, and despite never having given the retailer permission to bypass this status. These irritated consumers filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging that Shein was in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In particular, they cited three illegal acts resulting from the mass market texts: an intrusion on people’s seclusion, an invasion of their privacy, and a private nuisance.
The TCPA mandates that all retailers operating in the United States must honor the National Do Not Call Registry, and it clearly establishes that the burden of compliance is on retailers. They are the ones responsible for monitoring the registry and confirming that their practices adhere to the FTC’s standards.
Perhaps the strength of the response reflects consumers’ expectation that they can avoid nuisance calls. But we also might wonder if some of their anger has to do with the source of those calls. Shein has been involved in quite a few legal disputes, including allegations that it copies its clothing designs from other designers and thus violates their copyrights. Furthermore, federal agencies in the United States, Italy, and France have alleged that Shein willfully misrepresents its sustainability practices, such as when it claimed substantial reductions in the amount of microplastics in its clothing and the amount of textile waste it sent to landfills. An investigation by France’s antitrust regulatory body led to sizeable fines imposed on the retailer.
This historical context adds some nuance to the current complaints. The sheer scale and range of misdeeds that Shein has been accused of raise consumer skepticism and a willingness to believe the worst. Maybe if another company sent mass texts, then apologized that it did so in error, people would believe it. But Shein’s growing reputation for misleading communications undermines such goodwill, especially when its past actions indicate that direct monetary fines and losses represent the only incentive that can get it to clean up its act.
Discussion Questions
Should there be a standardized set of regulatory guidelines for all international companies to follow? Which regulations should be standardized? Privacy? Environmental? Which should be left up to each individual nation? Why?
Why would Shein continue to risk damage to its reputation? What benefits does it gain from engaging in such potentially illegal activity?
Sources: Laurel Deppon, “Shein Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Marketing Texts,” Retail Dive, July 15, 2025; Sara Traynor, “Privacy Bulletin: SHEIN SMS Violates Do-Not-Call Directive, Faces Class Action Lawsuit,” Kaamel, August 18, 2025; “Fast Fashion Giant Shein Hit With Lawsuit Over Shady Marketing Tactics—Here’s What You Need to Know,” The Cool Down, August 8, 2025.
London’s government appears determined to lower emissions; it also appears strapped for cash. The global capitol introduced an ultra-low emission zone plan in 2019, which imposed a daily fee on polluting vehicles (gas cars built before 2006, diesel engines built before 2015) that came into central London. By 2023, the fees applied throughout Greater London. The goal was to lower the emissions created in the city and encourage greater uses of more sustainable transportation options. Building on these efforts, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan recently suggested adding surveillance systems and monitors throughout the city, to track cars as they entered the ultra-low emission zones. At the same time, the national government reportedly is considering monetizing satellite surveillance technology that could be used to track the vehicles. Seeking these alternative sources of revenue seems critical; efforts to encourage consumers to switch to electric cars promise to eliminate approximately 25 billion pounds worth of revenue that the country currently earns from fuel taxes. Yet shifting the burden to consumers raises some legitimate questions too. The emission plan arguably affects working-class people disproportionately and detrimentally. As the cost of living in London has risen to untenable levels, they have fled to more remote areas, which offer relatively fewer public transportation options. Other challenges to the policies raise questions about their efficacy; an Imperial College London study suggested that the emission zones actually had little effect on air quality, at least in the months following their implementation. Lawmakers must come together quickly, to weigh policy options that will balance fiscal goals with public interest.
Sources: Phillip Inman, “If You Let Google Have Your Data, Why Not the NHS?” The Guardian, October 19, 2024; “The Ultra-Low Emission Zone for London,” London Assembly
Flight delays are, at some point, unavoidable. There are thousands of elements that must go right for airline travel to happen smoothly and safely, and even if airlines could realistically be expected to avoid every single mechanical issue that might arise in their planes or schedule staff perfectly, they still must deal with the completely uncontrollable influence of weather conditions. Thus, for the most part, airlines can and should be forgiven for reasonable, occasional flight delays and cancellations.
But reasonable and occasional are very different from preventable and chronic, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) seems determined to establish this distinction. In recent moves, it has fined JetBlue and Frontier for their persistent records of delays. The fines—$2 million to JetBlue, $650,000 charged to Frontier—go partially to compensate affected passengers.
Then it brought a $2.1 million suit against Southwest Airlines, alleging that in 2022, two of the airline’s regularly flight paths featured a habitual pattern of late arrivals. Passengers flying between Chicago and Oakland or between Baltimore and Cleveland—two routes that were scheduled at least 10 times per month—would arrive late (by at least a half hour) more than half of the time. According to the U.S. DOT, that signals a chronic pattern. Furthermore, the DOT has estimated that about 90 percent of those delays were preventable. Therefore, it alleges that the airline failed to live up to its legal obligation, which requires it to establish and publish actually realistic flight schedules so that passengers have ready access to reliable information that supports their own planning efforts.
Beyond the impacts on travelers trying to get to Oakland or Cleveland on time, Southwest’s chronic delays constitutes an anticompetitive practice, according to the DOT. Specifically, it advertised and marketed these flights, as occurring in accordance with the published schedule. Because it could not live up to that promise, Southwest arguably was engaged in deceptive advertising that could give it an unfair competitive advantage.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Southwest denies the allegations. It regards the accusations as outdated and, while recognizing that those routes suffered issues in the past, highlights its successful completion of approximately 20 million on-time flights since the legislation that enforces punishments for chronic delays passed in 2009.
Discussion Questions
Are fines of airlines that run chronically delayed flight paths appropriate? Are they fair? Take the perspective of the punished airline, its competitors, and travelers to develop your answer.
What are some other ways to incentivize airlines to deal with and avoid chronic delays?
Sources: Niraj Chokshi, “U.S. Sues Southwest Airlines over Chronic Delays,” The New York Times, January 15, 2025; Ayana Archie, “The Transportation Department Sues Southwest Airlines for Alleged Oft-Delayed Flights,” National Public Radio, January 16, 2025; “DOT Sues Southwest Airlines for Chronically Delayed Flights,” Department of Transportation, January 15, 2025
