4 ms·
I'm with you on that. If they removed the product once they learned what it was, I'm not sure how an you could say they "let" someone sell it, rather than that
by karaterobot 3y ago
I'm with you on that. If they removed the product once they learned what it was, I'm not sure how an you could say they "let" someone sell it, rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while. The name of the show is The Great Amazon Heist, which maybe tells you a little bit about what is going on. I agree with the article, and perhaps with the prankster, that Amazon didn't do enough due diligence on the products they sell, but "let" implies they would continue selling it even after knowing what it was.
- ceejayoz 3y agoAmazon is fully capable of doing due dilligence on new and changed listings. They could even charge a small listing fee to cover the costs of having some minimum wage peon look at it for 30 seconds and hitting the "yep, this is OK" button. They choose not to implement sufficient checks. They bear some responsibility for what's being sold under their name on their website.
- cogman10 3y ago> rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while Can you think of any other retailer where this is or could be happening? Could you imagine Walmart selling cocaine? Yet somehow it's ok if Amazon does it because "we stopped after we discovered what we were doing was illegal"?