4 ms·

This is about the marketplace though. Amazon position themselves as an intermediary only, and from their point-of-view, the actual seller should be liable. I'm

This is about the marketplace though. Amazon position themselves as an intermediary only, and from their point-of-view, the actual seller should be liable. I'm not sure what the UK law says about this specific case.

Carrok 2y ago
They take products from multiple sources and literally dump them all into one bin, from which they sell. If they were an actually an intermediary only, they would not co-mingle items.
- mbreese 2y ago
  I think this is a good point. At what point do business practices (co-mingling) remove any sort of liability protections (if they exist) here? Is Amazon just an intermediary if they don’t keep good from different vendors separate? I think there is a good argument to be made here.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    I think the big thing is that Amazon does not own the items listed by these 3rd party vendors. The CPSC is claiming Amazon is a distributor. > A distributor is an independent contractor who buys goods on their own account from an exporter or supplier and resells the goods to customers in their own territory. > They do not act as a communication channel between the supplier and the customer and normally do not have authority to create a contract between the customer and the supplier or exporter. I would say Amazon is legitimately in a gray zone between providing 3PL services and being a distributor. Amazon is facilitating payments, but it's not really reselling things it has already purchased. Amazon can make a strong argument it does facilitate communication between the supplier and customer, given that the person making the listing can put lots of information on the sale page and there is a mechanism for the seller to directly answer consumer questions, though conversely Amazon has a lot of influence over that communication and the government has a strong argument that the consumer is only entering into a contract with Amazon. Really the issue is that Amazon is just too horizontally integrated. If it were split up into a pure 3PL service, a pure financial transaction handler, a pure online sales listing platform, and a pure competing retailer, none of those four entities would have an obligation to recall a third party vendor's product. It's only when you combine these into a monstrous chimera that the lines blur.
    - ahazred8ta 2y ago
      Amazon is basically a consignment shop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consignment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consignment
      - jjk166 2y ago
        For the 3rd party vendors yes, but at the same time Amazon also sells its own products and it can be reasonably unclear to the end customer which is which.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      A distributor under the Consumer Product Safety Act is rather different: > The term “distributor” means a person to whom a consumer product is delivered or sold for purposes of distribution in commerce, except that such term does not include a manufacturer or retailer of such product. There’s no grey zone here. Amazon tried to claim the exemption for third-party logistics providers, but that’s specifically for carriers and forwarders and limited to those who solely receives/holds/transports consumer products without taking title, but Amazon goes beyond that by marketing those products to consumers for sale.
      - jjk166 2y ago
        Is Amazon selling the product, or are 3rd parties selling a product on Amazon? If the latter, Amazon is not a distributor. Amazon does not take title of the goods it receives, holds, and transports. While I think Amazon is sufficiently involved to count as a distributor, it definitely is not clear cut.
        _aavaa_ 2y ago
        My money goes to Amazon, my credit statements say Amazon, my customer support is through Amazon, my returns are through Amazon, the website I go to is Amazon, the boxes I get say Amazon. To a buyer, they are acting in a way that is indistinguishable from being a seller (if we wish to humour their claim). If the law does not classify them as the seller, then the law needs to be update to reflect the present day.
  - cameldrv 2y ago
    Yeah I'm not sure about the law, but if the concept of consumer protection is caveat emptor, I need to know who I'm dealing with. The problem with Amazon is that even if you order from one seller, you're getting the goods from someone different. If Amazon isn't even letting you choose who you're buying from, then in my mind, you're buying from them.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Let's not complicate this. My credit card says: AMAZON.
layer8 2y ago
Retailers are generally intermediaries. It’s not clear what the difference is when Amazon sells Marketplace items from their own storage and are handling delivery, payment, and returns.
tracker1 2y ago
I don't buy it... they do fulfillment and commingled inventory in the process. They cannot reasonably separate themselves from independent sellers.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  That's literally the point - this behavior has always only been legal insofar as the government (the Executive branch) has not been criminally prosecuting Amazon for selling used-as-new or outright fakes. Biden has been a substantially more pro-consumer president and he has given the FTC and CPSC real teeth to crack down on this stuff. This is incidentally why the recent SC ruling shooting down Chevron deference is so devastating.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  To be clear, I agree. Especially since they don't make it obvious that you're buying from a 3rd party seller. The whole website is made to look like a unified front.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I am willing to separate fulfilled by Amazon from shipped by third-party. In later case I am willing to give reasonable leeway to them. But if product is in your warehouse and you are selling it. Well you should be responsible for claims such as fit to purpose and warranty.

Carrok 2y ago

They take products from multiple sources and literally dump them all into one bin, from which they sell. If they were an actually an intermediary only, they would not co-mingle items.

mbreese 2y ago
I think this is a good point. At what point do business practices (co-mingling) remove any sort of liability protections (if they exist) here? Is Amazon just an intermediary if they don’t keep good from different vendors separate? I think there is a good argument to be made here.
- jjk166 2y ago
  I think the big thing is that Amazon does not own the items listed by these 3rd party vendors. The CPSC is claiming Amazon is a distributor. > A distributor is an independent contractor who buys goods on their own account from an exporter or supplier and resells the goods to customers in their own territory. > They do not act as a communication channel between the supplier and the customer and normally do not have authority to create a contract between the customer and the supplier or exporter. I would say Amazon is legitimately in a gray zone between providing 3PL services and being a distributor. Amazon is facilitating payments, but it's not really reselling things it has already purchased. Amazon can make a strong argument it does facilitate communication between the supplier and customer, given that the person making the listing can put lots of information on the sale page and there is a mechanism for the seller to directly answer consumer questions, though conversely Amazon has a lot of influence over that communication and the government has a strong argument that the consumer is only entering into a contract with Amazon. Really the issue is that Amazon is just too horizontally integrated. If it were split up into a pure 3PL service, a pure financial transaction handler, a pure online sales listing platform, and a pure competing retailer, none of those four entities would have an obligation to recall a third party vendor's product. It's only when you combine these into a monstrous chimera that the lines blur.
  - ahazred8ta 2y ago
    Amazon is basically a consignment shop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consignment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consignment
    - jjk166 2y ago
      For the 3rd party vendors yes, but at the same time Amazon also sells its own products and it can be reasonably unclear to the end customer which is which.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    A distributor under the Consumer Product Safety Act is rather different: > The term “distributor” means a person to whom a consumer product is delivered or sold for purposes of distribution in commerce, except that such term does not include a manufacturer or retailer of such product. There’s no grey zone here. Amazon tried to claim the exemption for third-party logistics providers, but that’s specifically for carriers and forwarders and limited to those who solely receives/holds/transports consumer products without taking title, but Amazon goes beyond that by marketing those products to consumers for sale.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      Is Amazon selling the product, or are 3rd parties selling a product on Amazon? If the latter, Amazon is not a distributor. Amazon does not take title of the goods it receives, holds, and transports. While I think Amazon is sufficiently involved to count as a distributor, it definitely is not clear cut.
      - _aavaa_ 2y ago
        My money goes to Amazon, my credit statements say Amazon, my customer support is through Amazon, my returns are through Amazon, the website I go to is Amazon, the boxes I get say Amazon. To a buyer, they are acting in a way that is indistinguishable from being a seller (if we wish to humour their claim). If the law does not classify them as the seller, then the law needs to be update to reflect the present day.
- cameldrv 2y ago
  Yeah I'm not sure about the law, but if the concept of consumer protection is caveat emptor, I need to know who I'm dealing with. The problem with Amazon is that even if you order from one seller, you're getting the goods from someone different. If Amazon isn't even letting you choose who you're buying from, then in my mind, you're buying from them.
datavirtue 2y ago
Let's not complicate this. My credit card says: AMAZON.

layer8 2y ago

Retailers are generally intermediaries. It’s not clear what the difference is when Amazon sells Marketplace items from their own storage and are handling delivery, payment, and returns.

tracker1 2y ago

I don't buy it... they do fulfillment and commingled inventory in the process. They cannot reasonably separate themselves from independent sellers.

SR2Z 2y ago
That's literally the point - this behavior has always only been legal insofar as the government (the Executive branch) has not been criminally prosecuting Amazon for selling used-as-new or outright fakes. Biden has been a substantially more pro-consumer president and he has given the FTC and CPSC real teeth to crack down on this stuff. This is incidentally why the recent SC ruling shooting down Chevron deference is so devastating.
cassianoleal 2y ago
To be clear, I agree. Especially since they don't make it obvious that you're buying from a 3rd party seller. The whole website is made to look like a unified front.
Ekaros 2y ago
I am willing to separate fulfilled by Amazon from shipped by third-party. In later case I am willing to give reasonable leeway to them. But if product is in your warehouse and you are selling it. Well you should be responsible for claims such as fit to purpose and warranty.