3 ms·
The cost of suing Amazon (which is how a customer would hold them liable) greatly outweighs the cost of almost any counterfeit good they might happen to ship.
by snowwrestler 7y ago
The cost of suing Amazon (which is how a customer would hold them liable) greatly outweighs the cost of almost any counterfeit good they might happen to ship.
The government is not likely to step with criminal enforcement unless they are presented with proof that Amazon purposefully ordered the fakes, or knowingly sold fakes.
Generally speaking, retailers are considered victims, not perpetrators, of counterfeiting. That's because when a retailer sells a counterfeit, the retailer has to process the returns and deal with angry customers, and then they're left with worthless inventory.
Again, the exception is if the retailer knowingly traffics in fakes and tries to defraud their customers. Proving that takes some pretty specific evidence though.
- Pinckney 7y agoI don't see why police can't simply use civil asset forfeiture seize an entire warehouse, just like they seize homes from owners who might not know that another resident was selling drugs out of it. Proving that the owner knew of the crime isn't necessary to seize an instrument of crime.
- jrockway 7y agoBecause Amazon will fight back. I guarantee you that very few people with 50 billion dollars of cash in their bank account have their homes taken via civil asset forfeiture.
- tsss 7y agoThey can do a lot of things but they won't. They don't have anything to gain personally from attacking Amazon so why would they?
- snowwrestler 7y agoIn my opinion, civil asset forfeiture sucks and should be illegal.
- pseingatl 7y agoUnless it's medical related and death results.
- mcv 7y agoIf Amazon does not go out of its way to fix this and eradicate the problem completely, it is knowingly trafficking in fakes. Amazon absolutely should be held accountable for providing such a convenient platform for counterfeiters.