[throw20102010]

Amazon needs to stop with inventory comingling. They know it and refuse to stop, so they are culpable. I'm sure it would hurt their logistics to stop, but it also hurts cigarette companies to not advertise to children and we made that a law.

It is ridiculous that you can order a supplement where it says "sold by Proctor and Gamble, fulfilled by Amazon" on the product listing, and then receive a counterfeit product that was sent in by a different company. If they received it from a different company, then it wasn't "sold by Proctor and Gamble."

At the very least they need to give brand owners the tools to protect their brands- an option to put non-authorized resellers' shipments into a separate comingled bin, and have all the authorized resellers in another.

Right now the only option for a brand with a popular product to protect from counterfeiting is to not sell anything through Amazon and sue everyone that tries to list your products on Amazon- which might not even work and really hurts your market reach.

[jdietrich]

Amazon are playing a very dangerous game with their brand.

I buy a lot of stuff from AliExpress. I know that there's a fair chance that I'll get some kind of junk, but it's cheap enough that I'm often willing to take the gamble.

Until very recently, Amazon offered the lowest-hassle online shopping experience by a considerable margin. I'd often buy from Amazon without bothering to compare prices, because the convenience of one-click ordering was worth it.

Almost entirely because of Marketplace, Amazon is regressing from a premium retail experience to an AliExpress-style flea market. Every time I click the buy button, I worry about getting a counterfeit product, I worry about the hassle of returning it, I worry about getting banned from Amazon by an algorithm for "abusing" their returns policy. Buying from Amazon isn't a no-brainer any more.

Amazon were so very close to having a total monopoly on my online spending, but they squandered it. They could have secured a loyal and price-insensitive customer, but instead they're driving me away from their platform. Maybe they don't care about being a retailer any more, maybe they're all-in on AWS, but if I were an Amazon shareholder I'd be getting pretty damned nervous.

[jrockway]

Same. In fact, I basically only use Amazon as an AliExpress with free 2 day shipping. For anything that could be counterfeited (which is really anything these days!), I won't touch them anymore. B&H is the same price and I can always show up at their store and be annoying until they fix my problem.

[x0x0]

I'm in the same place -- Amazon sold me a counterfeit charger. Well, not counterfeit, but with a fake ETL/Intertek -- a UL competitor -- mark. I told their CS and they refunded me, then continued selling the charger with the fake ETL mark.

I moved $40k/year of IT spend from my company off Amazon to BHPhoto.

I also stopped buying any makeup / food / supplements / dog food / dog toys on Amazon.

Hell, I bought my dog's new leash and collar straight from the manufacturer!

[gervu]

It seems like a lot of things that sound an awful lot like fraudulent practices from a lay perspective don't actually reach a useful or provable definition when it comes to legal liability.

But saying something is sold by a specific party which I then choose to do business with, then substituting goods that are likely to be from any of numerous other parties, some of which I may be explicitly trying to avoid doing business with...I would at least be interested in hearing why that doesn't count as fraud or false advertising or some such, or maybe some trademarks issue.

At least, I'd love to hear a less rage-inducing justification for putting up with allowing this behavior than "it was buried in a ToS somewhere that lying about who my goods came from is okay, actually."

[ajross]

That phrasing is part of the problem, not the solution. You're conflating the idea of a manufacturer (Proctor & Gamble in this case) with a reseller. Amazon tells you both, but since the retail products are (should be) identical, neither they nor you really care whether or not this particular box came from "Joe's Nutrition" or "Sally's Supplements", and worrying about that distinction is like arguing against the fungibility of money (did that dollar bill in your pocket, which you got from an ATM, "come from" your job or your side gig?).

It's not the comingling that is the root cause here, it's the fraud. It doesn't matter whether or not Amazon buys their pills from Joe or Sally, what we care about is that they're not selling fake pills. Focusing on comingling seems to be missing the point. We have even less ability than Amazon to detect the fact that Joe is selling fake pills, so they'd still make it into people's mailboxes.

[AnssiH]

Well, one can think of it as follows:

1. You place an order from supplier A.

2. Supplier A buys the unit from supplier B (and pays the balance by transferring another unit A => B).

3. The now supplier A's unit gets sent to you.

I.e. somewhat similar to e.g. dropshipping and other such practices which are traditionally perfectly legal.

It seems it would be quite hard to argue false advertising on that (as you got the item from A - generally it does not matter who A got it from, unless A claims to be the manufacturer), which I guess is why it has not happened yet.

But I could still see it happen, especially if the counterfeiting problems worsen. Maybe the fact that Amazon does it automatically for the sellers (with their approval) could be considered a factor that makes this different from the traditional stock supply cases.

[davinic]

I'm a former marketplace seller. There is a way brands can accomplish this: marketplace items must contain all the features that the original brand provides. So the brand can create, say, a warranty that only applies when purchased form an "authorized seller". Since the company controls who is authorized, no other seller is able to include the warranty, and their offerings are not identical.

The difficult part in all of this is dealing with Amazon and their terrible marketplace back end.

[MaxBarraclough]

> marketplace items must contain all the features that the original brand provides

Why should a buyer be expected to trust either Amazon, or the fulfiller, to decide which bait-and-switch sales don't count as bait-and-switch?

It wrongs both the buyer, who doesn't get what they ordered, and the original manufacturer, who is being subjected to something akin to 'passing off' in trademark law. You aren't allowed to hijack someone else's brand to sell your product. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

[elliekelly]

> Amazon needs to stop with inventory comingling. They know it and refuse to stop, so they are culpable.

An appeals court just recently said this in their ruling on a consumer products liability case. Oberdorf v Amazon I believe.

Edit: Apologies, I was on my phone earlier and I didn't link to the opinion https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/18...

[Animats]

Yes.[1] At least in Pennsylvania. This decision is based on state law. Amazon claims to be insulated from product liability claims because it is not the "seller". The Third Circuit says Amazon is the "seller". "Amazon not only accepts orders and arranges for product shipments, but it also exerts substantial market control over product sales by restricting product pricing, customer service, and communications with customers."

Amazon can in turn sue the party who provided the product to recover what they have to pay out to the end customer, if they want.

Amazon allows their product providers to be somewhat anonymous. That weighed against them in the court decision. To the court, that looks like a retailer-wholesaler relationship. An actual seller has to disclose the actual name and address of the business in some states, including California. (B&P code section 17358).

[1] https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181041p.pdf

[IanCal]

> At the very least they need to give brand owners the tools to protect their brands- an option to put non-authorized resellers' shipments into a separate comingled bin, and have all the authorized resellers in another.

As a brand I think you can stop others listing your products. I tried to sell something a while back and was refused because I was a third party seller.

[deogeo]

I should have known this would be used as an excuse to even further expand corporate control at the expense of individuals. Now they're trying to use it to restrict the second-hand market.

Instead of making it clear you're buying second-hand goods, or from a non-authorized seller, they are deliberately conflating what you're buying, with who you're buying it from. This way their anti-counterfeit efforts will conveniently squash the second-hand market.

[gdulli]

Aside from counterfeiting, it's become a hassle to buy from the marketplace. My last experience was buying a small piece of furniture. There was a problem and it could have been resolved more easily than it was, but as inconveniences came up I had to deal with both Amazon's and the vendor's customer service. And each blamed the other. Ultimately I had to pack up something heavy to be shipped back which I didn't want to do, and if I had to do it it would have been less hassle to take it back somewhere local. Which is how I wish I had made the purchase.

[chrsstrm]

They could require all suppliers to put up a surety bond. Make the amount high enough to filter out suppliers unwilling to sell long-term and also attempt to filter out anyone intending to sell counterfeit goods. Any suppliers who hit a certain threshold of failing to meet Amazon's standards of product authenticity would forfeit their bond. This isn't a new idea, it works well in other industries.

[ryanmarsh]

There's a whole class of items I won't buy from Amazon. Supplements are one of them, I buy direct. Given how easy it is to set up a Shopify store I can't see how this is good for Amazon.

[tracker1]

Or at least require a deposit for sellers of a non-insignificant amount, a hold on new seller payouts for up to 30-60 days and per-seller stickers on intake inventory so sellers of counterfeits can be rooted out better.

Also, allow product manufacturers who sell directly, to block other sellers on the platform for their products and handle reports for alike-named and-or brand confusing products.

Amazon does very little to actually do anything meaningful to limit counterfeit products.

[amluto]

Screw the deposit. Amazon itself should be liable if they don’t track who actually sold the merchandise.

[ceejayoz]

> Also, allow product manufacturers who sell directly, to block other sellers on the platform for their products and handle reports for alike-named and-or brand confusing products.

They do have a program for this, I believe: https://brandservices.amazon.com/

[toasterlovin]

FWIW, they’ve started a program to apply serial numbers to individual units. It takes time to shift large platforms like this.

[michaelmrose]

The doctrine of first sale means you can't keep people from reselling your branded products and if you don't offer your products on Amazon at this point others will offer fakes and with Amazons cooperation acquire your customers while offering them cheaper competitors products.

Its a lovely situation to say the least. All strategies are sub optimal. Logically we need a law forcing them to divulge who your actual product is coming from on the page before you buy effectively ending comingling.

[gamblor956]

The issue isn't reselling branded products.

The issue is selling fake products as a branded products. Amazon makes this easy to do by commingling inventory and not matching/tracking sellers to inventory items.

This fact by itself would probably make Amazon liable for product liability claims in any court in the US, it's traditional CDA liability sheild notwithstanding.

EDIT: Products liability law is complicated, but generally even if Amazon wouldn't be treated as a seller, they could still be held liable for their negligence in providing the wrong/defective item out of their (commingled) inventory. Amazon doesn't match sellers to inventory items so they have literally no way to defend themselves from such a suit especially if the seller can show that they provide products straight from the manufacturer but Amazon commingled with other sellers' inventory. (I'm aware of several such suits that were almost immediately settled by Amazon with NDAs attached.)

[ceejayoz]

The doctrine of first sale means people can re-sell your products.

It does not mean you have a right to do so on Amazon.

[CobrastanJorji]

I slightly disagree. The item was sold by Proctor and Gamble. They got the money I paid, and I got a product back. Proctor and Gamble happened to use a third party for fulfillment and as a marketplace for handling the sale, and they are to blame for choosing a fulfillment company which may occasionally send me fake products that Proctor and Gamble didn't make.

We should fault the sellers for using Amazon in the first place.

[empath75]

That is bizarre dream logic. Amazon is the one commingling inventory. P&G are sending legitimate product.

I would never purchase anything from amazon other than books, personally. Too much of a chance you’re going to get counterfeits or faulty merchandise.

[nkrisc]

If Amazon instead sends a counterfeit product from someone other than P&G when I buy a product that is advertised as sold by P&G, the should be fraud, if it isn't already.

They need to show you who you're buying from if they aren't going to accept liability for selling it.