No they are definitely not. You’re completely correct! They are, instead, an authority on what might get their asses sued to the moon and back and apparently found the cost/ benefit of selling this popular product to be negative. Any ideas what might cause that?

In the past, Amazon didn't care about dangerous products until lots of houses had been burned down by them, so if they ban a product it must be really bad.

They don't care about safety, life, or limb. Amazon didn't enforce the ban of literal suicide kits until legislation was in the works.

It's quite clear: until it threatens to blow away their "we're not an intermediary- We're a service provider." Smokescreen they don't care.

> The article doesn't state by how much it increased.

This is a really strange response. How would you go about quantifying this when you don't care to add to their profit by buying a bunch of them, and can't get the product anyway because it was pulled for safety reasons?

>when you don't care to add to their profit

I was going to, but it was delisted. I didn't expect that to happen so I was waiting until the next time I was going to travel before ordering it.

In regards to quantifying the risk I would expect there to have been prior research on the dangers of lithium ion batteries that could be referenced due to it being such a common battery chemistry.

That lower than .5 mm margin on those edges may not have caused fires - yet - but if nothing is done about it then one day they will. That's an accident waiting to happen.