Customer Care

[ms traditional]

if you can't post warning on product description, give me the option to move ahead with my order acknowledging i am aware of "risks".  i do not want my orders blocked.

[Marp]

I have no doubt Q is working on meeting the prop65 requirements so they can ship to CA.  However, I am also certain they are attemtping to meet the letter of the law because...

California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.7

25249.7. (a) A person who violates or threatens to violate Section 25249.5 or 25249.6 may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) (1) A person who has violated Section 25249.5 or 25249.6 is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per day for each violation in addition to any other penalty established by law. That civil penalty may be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.

[ms traditional]

@Marp

Q is behind on this.  Evine has a Prop 65 warning flag on check out which smooths this right over.   example: 

 WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and/or other reproductive harm
Manufactured before 8/30/2018

[Marp]

@ms traditional, how is Evine handling call in and automated orders?

[ms traditional]

---

@Marp wrote:

@ms traditional, how is Evine handling call in and automated orders?

---

i don't know. i do everything on line myself.  on a call it would only take a second to read a disclosure.

[loriqvc]

I believe the main issue is that QVC is holding the individual vendors responsible for documenting their products. That is a fair and practical approach, especially with the large inventory QVC handles, but it is not communicated well to consumers and it seems like the requirement for the documentation should have been enforced before now so sales could proceed. (And I think that's why some items are available when others aren't—the vendors who have already complied are free to sell and ship their products.)

I agree with other posters that there really needs to be a much better explanation presented when a transaction cannot be processed due to this regulation.

[loriqvc]

For those not familiar with Prop 65, here's a link to the FAQs section of the website California compiled on the subject:

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-faqs

[Teddixat]

Prop 65 has been in effect since 1986. QVC is being lazy. They were shipping these items on August 29th and before but as of August 30th they had to meet an additional requirement and didn’t do it so the won’t ship the products. How dumb is that??! This is ridiculous. Every other vendor is shipping stuff and have warning labels on the product. QVC is pathetic

[silkyk]

---

@Teddixat wrote:
Prop 65 has been in effect since 1986. QVC is being lazy. They were shipping these items on August 29th and before but as of August 30th they had to meet an additional requirement and didn’t do it so the won’t ship the products. How dumb is that??! This is ridiculous. Every other vendor is shipping stuff and have warning labels on the product. QVC is pathetic

---

ITA! I have no problems on ANY other site. Why the heck is Q being so stupid about this? Losing a lot of sales but I guess they don't mind. Please let us know when the insanity stops and we can reorder.