Comment by ikeboy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ikeboy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm responding to your point that Amazon does "little to nothing to ensure authenticity for consumers."

I disagree, and I'd imagine the plaintiffs in the following cases would as well:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16620676/v-fjallraven-u... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16601182/ems-imports-ll... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16462329/ly-berditchev-... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16139905/eng-sales-llc-... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16610999/big-birds-llc-... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16440121/oj-commerce-ll... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16438724/oj-commerce-ll... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15028460/dj-direct-inc-... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6846972/starke-v-tp-lin... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13477612/johnson-v-inco...

Or for that matter, the 12,000+ people who've signed a petition complaining about Amazon's overzealous enforcement at https://www.change.org/p/jeff-bezos-amazon-com-should-only-s.... Read through a few of the comments there.

False positives rates go up when trying to minimize the false negative rate. As such, evidence that the false positive rate is high shows that actual counterfeits are being enforced heavily as well.

Anyway, OP doesn't mention any specific actions they expected Amazon to take that weren't taken. It doesn't say, for example, that they asked Amazon to take down counterfeits and were refused.

I think we're in agreement regarding Amazon: They don't take an active role in policing their marketplace. They have a "report this listing" mechanism that essentially bans a seller outright, with no effort to validate the claim. They just assume it's legit by default and the seller is always in the wrong. But to be clear, the brands are the ones taking action (and thus the defendant in these lawsuits), Amazon has essentially no role.

It's my view that Amazon themselves should be taking action on behalf of both consumers and sellers to ensure that: 1) products are authentic, and 2) consumers can get the best prices possible even if that's from an "unauthorized reseller"

I'd mostly agree with that, with the caveat that they will often restrict particular listings or brands that got a high volume of complaints, and require proof of purchase to sell. They also flag sellers that have large sales increases in a short period of time.

>It's my view that Amazon themselves should be taking action on behalf of both consumers and sellers to ensure that: 1) products are authentic, and b) consumers can get the best prices possible even if that's from an "unauthorized reseller"

This is reasonable. They could require proof of purchase for all products, or perhaps for all products where more than 10 units are being sold.

I also think there should be a higher bar for foreign sellers, or perhaps a bond that must be posted.

I don't see why they don't require proof of purchase for every single item in their supply chain by a third party reseller, with valid, verifiable invoices issued only by the OEM.

1. The cost to verify all of those would be extreme. They ship billions of units in a year, that's tens of millions of invoices at a minimum.

2. "issued only by the OEM" but there are many valid suppliers that are not the brand owner. Even Amazon themselves buy from many vendors that are not the brand owner. Amazon wants those suppliers and third party sellers because they bring down pricing and have a wider selection than they'd get if they only allowed sellers buying direct.

Sellers have complained that this opens up their supply chain to be courted by Amazon.

Ex: if i sell a trendy product on amazon, then they ask me for proof of purchase, they then know who to approach to make the amazon basics version, and take the wind out of my sails.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com