A recent ruling in British Columbia has established that companies like Amazon are accountable for packages until they are received by the actual purchaser. This decision comes as online shopping peaks, highlighting the issue of package theft. Consumer Protection B.C. imposed a $10,000 fine on Amazon, clarifying the definition of a legal delivery in the province. Shahid Noorani, vice-president of regulatory affairs for Consumer Protection B.C., stated, "Goods to be delivered under a distant sales contract must be provided directly to the consumer." Noorani emphasized that delivery does not permit companies to leave packages with anyone other than the buyer or at a doorstep unless previously agreed upon. This interpretation aims to strengthen consumer protections under B.C.’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The ruling addresses concerns that allowing packages to be left unattended could lead to theft or disputes over responsibility for lost items. The case centered on the definition of "delivery" under B.C. law, which does not explicitly define the term. Noorani ruled that the term should be interpreted broadly in favor of consumers to uphold the intent of consumer protection laws. He concluded that Amazon failed to deliver the goods to the consumer, thus requiring a refund. The customer, whose identity was not disclosed, reported that he requested a refund for a failed delivery in 2024 but instead had his Amazon account canceled. He claimed he did not receive a portable dual display and digital storage unit valued at $582.75. Amazon contended that its GPS records indicated the package was delivered. In addition to the fine, Amazon was ordered to pay nearly $10,000 for the investigation costs. During the investigation, Amazon claimed the customer had engaged in "return abuse," citing previous refunds totaling $300 for failed deliveries that they asserted had been completed. The delivery driver reported handing the package to a resident at the buyer’s Vancouver address after sending a digital notification. The customer later provided a police report regarding the missing package and canceled the sales contract as required by law. Instead of a refund, the customer received an email from Amazon stating, "We are sorry that you feel the need to contact consumer court." Amazon informed a Consumer Protection inspector that its investigation found a pattern of non-delivery claims by the customer. However, the inspector noted that it was Amazon's responsibility to prove delivery and requested evidence such as photos or videos, which Amazon declined to provide due to privacy concerns. Amazon argued that anyone answering the door is authorized to accept a package and that its delivery practices comply with B.C. law. The company also stated that customers agree to terms that transfer the risk of loss once goods are handed to a carrier. However, Noorani pointed out that B.C. law prohibits consumers from waiving their legal rights through contracts. Noorani recommended that Amazon review its contract language to ensure compliance with provincial consumer protection laws. He assessed the penalty at $10,000, considering Amazon's refusal to issue a refund and the significant harm to the consumer. Amazon has 30 days from the October 14 decision to request a reconsideration of the ruling. After exhausting internal reviews, the decision may be subject to judicial review by a B.C. Supreme Court judge.