> Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case? Do you accept this from Forbes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/13/how-to-protect-you

> Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case? Do you accept this from Forbes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/13/how-to-protect-your-family-from-dangerous-fakes-on-amazon-this-holiday-season/#4d7d2ac57cf1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/13/how-to-p... How about this from the LA Times? https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-amazon-counterfeits-20180928-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-amazon-... "The goods may look real online, but there is no guarantee of authenticity — whether sold by a brand, a third-party seller or Amazon’s direct-sales arm." > It's the opposite of what is said in the article In fact it is _not_ the opposite of what is said in the article! Read it again. Nowhere do they say that you're safe from counterfeits if you buy from the right links. The article steers well clear of even mentioning inventory commingling. The most insidious aspect is that you believe that they've exonerated Amazon, when they just neglected to mention the other half of the problem. In the last example, they give their credulity away entirely. "We compared a recently purchased set of Tweezerman tweezers...the seller had swapped in a model that was different from what was listed on the page" Who was the seller, you ask? The page they link to says "sold by Amazon.com".