3 ms·
I think the most interesting thing here is that Amazon can effectively claim a seller's property is fake based on reviews that everyone knows are regularly game
by doodlebugging 6y ago
I think the most interesting thing here is that Amazon can effectively claim a seller's property is fake based on reviews that everyone knows are regularly gamed. Then they can refuse access to the inventory and make the claim, without having to provide any evidence, that the questionable inventory has in fact been destroyed and not just passed on to another seller behind the scenes.
Accountability is entirely absent here. On the seller side and on Amazon's side.
The fact that Amazon had physical control of the questionable merchandise and had no obligation to retain a small sample that would be useful for the owner to defend himself on the challenge of it's authenticity or for Amazon to demonstrate that it was counterfeit is troubling.
I don't have a problem with counterfeit merchandise being identified as fake. I think it is extreme to destroy it all. The existence of eBay, Harbor Freight, Walmart, and Amazon are proof that people will pay for inferior products that look like the originals but are not as durable or beautiful. Once a counterfeit is identified it should be relabeled for sale at a discount since it is a fake. Just like art.
- mjevans 6y agoThe cominging is also an issue. How does anyone know which supplier actually supplied X among Amazon's swath of caches? As a consumer, how do I know that when I buy from one FBA retailer on Amazon, the stock wasn't actually sourced by another that's also in that program? The lack of transparency, the lack of the consumer (and presumably also retailers) being able to trace these products back to their source of manufacture is the issue. Keep the records that need to be kept, let tracking figure out if there are customers returning bad items, or fraudulent suppliers, or just a run of bad product that had a given lot code.
- doodlebugging 6y agoExactly. There has to be a way to put trust back into the system. Trust only works if each participant is accountable to the others. Asset tracking is supposed to be a solved problem but obviously it is a bad idea to hand your operations over to a third party whose agenda is likely different than your own.