91–100 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s keep it simple. Whoever takes the money is the vendor. Amazon lists it, amazon fulfills it, and they get paid for it. Sounds like the vendor to me.
Except Amazon doesn’t list it. The vendor does.
I'm so done with Amazon, it's all shady Chinese companies selling counterfeits and knockoffs. I was blown away when I bought fake Dove soap the other day in perfect looking packaging. It's impossible to trust anything on there.
Cheap goods make in China are facilitated by Amazon, and all media and content companies are basically just advertising for those products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should, or at least report it. That’s how it continues.
Reporting doesn’t work. I reported a counterfeit item and amazon apologized and refunded the money and promised to go after the seller. In the end they removed all of the seller’s negative feedback since it was “fulfilled by amazon”. What a joke.
If you still have the counterfeit item and a copy of the correspondence between yourself and Amazon, it might be worth forwarding...
Edit: I realise I have responded to the wrong person. The point still stands, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my first takeaway too. It’s one of the biggie no-no’s in banking to not know the customer. I’m at a loss on why that would be ok here. I’m also fine with the manufacturer taking the liability but for the retailer to say we don’t know, is at best incompetence and at worst a middle finger to the US consumer.
The manufacturer should have to be required to maintain liability insurance with a claims process. If Amazon doesn’t enforce that standard, it should have to stand in.
https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/help.html?itemID=20...
However, they do not enforce it (IME) until you break $10K/mo
Sounds like there needs to be a “know your merchant” law. It makes sense to me that Amazon might not be liable, but it makes no sense at all that people can’t get in touch with the actual seller.
The entire interaction is via the Amazon interface and amazon.com storefront. Amazon inserts itself between buyer and seller every bit as much as Sears or Macys. So they let some fly-by-night Chinese merchants fulfill the orders? That definitely should not be the buyer's problem.
Of course, I know this is by design. But is it ethical?
If Amazon can profit off a listing then why shouldn't it be held liable for the damage caused due to the listing? If Amazon has already put up an agreement which frees them from liability then it sounds like, "Ok, I'll be with you in your good time but I'll walk away as soon as you have a misfortune" like an unfaithful life partner. Of course, I know this is by design. But is it ethical?
If Amazon can profit off a listing then why shouldn't it be held liable for the damage caused due to the listing? If Amazon has already put up an agreement which frees them from liability then it sounds like, "Ok, I'll be with you in your good time but I'll walk away as soon as you have a misfortune" like an unfaithful life partner. Of course, I know this is by design. But is it ethical?
Shouldn't the liability be placed on the company actually selling the product through amazon? Amazon is a marketplace, not a manufacturer, in most cases I think
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't the liability be placed on the company actually selling the product through amazon? Amazon is a marketplace, not a manufacturer, in most cases I think
Amazon does profit off the listing is my assertion. Without Amazon, listing's ability to damage at scale is limited. Can't we argue that it is one of the partners in crime?