4 ms·

IMO the supply chain and knowing your supplier plays an extremely important role in making sure products are legitimate and conform to all regulations. A big p

IMO the supply chain and knowing your supplier plays an extremely important role in making sure products are legitimate and conform to all regulations. A big problem with Amazon is that you can end up with counterfeit products or products that have fake safety certifications stamped on them and you'll never nail down the culprits that orchestrated it. It'll be a transient company in China that's gone by the time anyone knows what happened. So yeah, you can trust the brand, but if a retailer has no incentive to keep counterfeit products off the shelf there's no guarantee your toothpaste is actually being supplied by Crest. You aren't going to have much luck suing a counterfeiter in a foreign country, especially since they'll be set up to disappear. It's important for everyone in the supply chain to be liable and making the retailer liable to the consumer is the easiest way to do that. If a supplier sells a retailer a fake unsafe product and the retailer gets sued because of it, the retailer can sue the supplier. If the supplier is buying from a respectable manufacturer they can sue the manufacturer (or settle with them). As soon as you make the consumer go directly to the supplier or manufacturer, there's a huge incentive to set up a supply chain like Amazon has where a ton of low quality garbage gets foisted onto consumers and there's no recourse because all of the liable parties are in foreign countries.

crazygringo 6y ago
Thanks for explaining, but I still don't see the logic here. First of all, how is a retailer supposed to vet their suppliers? They don't have the expertise or time to audit the supplier's own supply chains. Second, if the (non-counterfeit) manufacturer puts out a shoddy batch, it doesn't matter which suppliers it goes through. Why should the store be responsible for the shoddy product when it could have come through any supply chain? And third, I don't think lawsuits work the way you think they do. If you get sued, you can't just sue your supplier to pass it on and be done with it. You still lose $$$$ hiring lawyers. You're seizing on the idea of counterfeit products, but I'm not talking about counterfeits. I've never seen or heard of counterfeit toothpaste in my life. And I'm not talking about foreign producers either -- if you import it, then you're liable. I'm talking about a store purchasing merchandise from a domestic supplier that is genuine. If that merchandise produces injuries, why on earth would the store be liable, instead of the manufacturer? It makes zero sense.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  I guess the way I see it is that most manufacturers are foreign rather than domestic, so that leaves you with making the importer liable for bad products. I think it’s a lot easier to implement that part of the supply chain with a bunch of zero asset, disposable companies, so it doesn’t really leave anyone that’s going to actually assume liability. The retailer relies on the value of their brand and often have significant domestic assets. So by making the retailer liable you’re pinning down someone who can’t just fold their company and walk away. And I don’t agree the retailer isn’t capable of vetting their supply chain. I’ll agree it’s not easy, but they’re in the best position to do it because they have a lot of leverage over their direct suppliers.

crazygringo 6y ago

Thanks for explaining, but I still don't see the logic here. First of all, how is a retailer supposed to vet their suppliers? They don't have the expertise or time to audit the supplier's own supply chains. Second, if the (non-counterfeit) manufacturer puts out a shoddy batch, it doesn't matter which suppliers it goes through. Why should the store be responsible for the shoddy product when it could have come through any supply chain? And third, I don't think lawsuits work the way you think they do. If you get sued, you can't just sue your supplier to pass it on and be done with it. You still lose $$$$ hiring lawyers. You're seizing on the idea of counterfeit products, but I'm not talking about counterfeits. I've never seen or heard of counterfeit toothpaste in my life. And I'm not talking about foreign producers either -- if you import it, then you're liable. I'm talking about a store purchasing merchandise from a domestic supplier that is genuine. If that merchandise produces injuries, why on earth would the store be liable, instead of the manufacturer? It makes zero sense.

donmcronald 6y ago
I guess the way I see it is that most manufacturers are foreign rather than domestic, so that leaves you with making the importer liable for bad products. I think it’s a lot easier to implement that part of the supply chain with a bunch of zero asset, disposable companies, so it doesn’t really leave anyone that’s going to actually assume liability. The retailer relies on the value of their brand and often have significant domestic assets. So by making the retailer liable you’re pinning down someone who can’t just fold their company and walk away. And I don’t agree the retailer isn’t capable of vetting their supply chain. I’ll agree it’s not easy, but they’re in the best position to do it because they have a lot of leverage over their direct suppliers.