• HeartyBeast@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    What I don’t understand is why Lidl just didn’t buy the domain for £20 and put something innocuous up. Surely cheaper than a recall

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what I thought, it seems easier to regain control of the domain than trying to recall all products with it printed on.

      Perhaps they were worried it would become a bigger scandal and thought a recall and refund would look better to the public.

      Always surprises me how often domain renewals seem to get forgotten about too. Even big tech companies have been caught out by this.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Supermarket giant Lidl has issued a recall of Paw Patrol snacks after the website listed on the products’ packaging began displaying explicit content unsuitable for children.

    Lidl, which operates more than 12,000 stores globally, is urging shoppers in the United Kingdom to return the snacks for a full refund.

    Lidl’s recall notice [PDF] dated August 22 warns that the product’s packaging contains a web address that has been “compromised” to display content “not suitable for child consumption.”

    “We recommend that customers refrain from viewing the URL and return this product to the nearest store where a full refund will be given,” Lidl states.

    Lidl did not say how or why the website was allegedly compromised, but TechCrunch’s findings suggest that the web domain on the packaging had lapsed.

    It’s not uncommon for web hosts to display ads as an additional source of revenue for domains that are empty or left to expire.


    The original article contains 323 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 53%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!