UPS: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (I guess I got a taste of my own medicine while editing lol) Fixed references |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Founded = August 28, 1907 | | Founded = August 28, 1907 | ||
| Industry = Courier | | Industry = Courier | ||
| Official Website = | | Official Website = https://www.ups.com | ||
| Logo = | | Logo = UPS.svg | ||
}} | }} | ||
== | ==Consumer impact summary== | ||
{{Ph-C-CIS}} | |||
=== | == Incidents == | ||
=== Exorbitant Brokerage Fees on Canadian Imports === | |||
In 2006, a resident of British Columbia, Canada purchased an amplified telephone device from Arizona, U.S.A and was displeased with being ordered to pay a $38.40 brokerage fee imposed by UPS, considering The Canada Post service to ship goods across the border would've been $5.00. Him and his lawyer started a class-action lawsuit against UPS on the grounds that the fee was "so harsh and adverse as to constitute an unconscionable practice." Other than the orders of magnitude more than competitor rates, the consumers receiving the packages were almost never told about the added fee until the package came to their front door.<ref>{{Cite web|url= http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/061024/K102418U.html|title= B.C. man sets off class-action lawsuit against UPS over hidden brokerage fees|first=Terri|last=Theodore|date=2006-10-24|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20061201094229/http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/061024/K102418U.html|archive-date=2006-12-01|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
===UPS and | This has been a fight spanning decades, including this class-action in 2015<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/Latest-Developments-in-the-Ongoing-UPS-Class-Action|title= Latest Developments in the Ongoing UPS Class Action|date=2015-07-10|first1= Michael|last1=Eizenga|first2=Ashley|last2=Paterson|work=Bennett Jones|access-date=2025-08-13|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20250425220657/https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/Latest-Developments-in-the-Ongoing-UPS-Class-Action|archive-date=2025-04-25|url-status=live}}</ref>, and another in 2025<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://sauderschelkopf.com/investigations/inflated-import-fees-by-ups-dhl-and-fedex-class-action-lawsuit-investigation/|title= Inflated Import Fees by UPS, DHL, and FedEx Class Action Lawsuit Investigation|work=Sauder Schelkopf Attorneys at Law|access-date=2025-08-13|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20250324030137/https://sauderschelkopf.com/investigations/inflated-import-fees-by-ups-dhl-and-fedex-class-action-lawsuit-investigation/ |archive-date=2025-03-24|url-status=live}}</ref> due to changes in Section 321(a)(2)(C) of the U.S. Tariff Act.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.easyship.com/blog/section-321-de-minimis-changes|title= Let's Talk Tariffs: Major U.S. Section 321 De Minimis Changes (May 2025)|author=Augustine|date=2025-05-02|work=easyship|access-date=2025-08-13|archive-url= https://archive.ph/EZLg2|archive-date=2025-08-13|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
== | === UPS and Affiliates Ordered to Pay $1.745 Million for Environmental Violations === | ||
In August 2025, UPS was required to pay $1.745 million dollars in penalties.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://rivcoda.org/UPS_violation|title= United Parcel Service and Affiliates Ordered to Pay $1.745 Million for Environmental Violations|date=2025-08-04|work=Office of the District Attorney County of Riverside|access-date=2025-08-13|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20250813160527/https://rivcoda.org/UPS_violation|archive-date=2025-08-13|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
== References == | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
[[Category:UPS]] | |||