Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 148 posts

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#121

Post by viburnum »

earthshot wrote: post #92
ck2 wrote: post #81

there's a new trick/scam on amazon I am not sure if anyone else has noticed yet seems designed to trick not only buyers but also sites like fakespot a vendor lists an item for awhile, something cheap and reliable enough to gather plenty of legit 5-star reviews then they leave the listing and ASIN but delete and change out the photos and the title/text with another item, not even similar item in some cases so the rati…

There's an e-mail thread going around Amazon about this, internally. The scam is that the fraudulent seller finds an item that is real but out of stock from all sellers. The seller than sends in their inventory, and updates the listing because they are now the only seller of that item. It really sucks, and I hope we find a way to solve this, soon. It's a terrible customer experience.

I don't follow this, what's happening?

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#122

Post by Animats »

elliekelly wrote: post #104
throw20102010 wrote: post #10

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 th…

> 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...

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

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#123

Post by jimmaswell »

therein wrote: post #14
cgriswald wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is busy shooting itself in the foot. The problem is, the gun is small and the foot is huge, so they probably don't feel it right now. Supplements (or really anything I put in my mouth) is one of a growing set of classes of items I won't buy on Amazon anymore. That probably doesn't result in much loss for Amazon right now, but what it does do is: 1. Makes me trust Amazon MUCH less, which means I'm much more lik…

Normally I'd just upvote and continue on my way but with the expectation that maybe someone from Amazon is reading and thinking "surely not everyone feels that way". We all feel this way. Inventory co-mingling will have major long term costs. If you think about it, it is pretty crazy how big of a reputation hit Amazon has taken in the last few years.

Opposing view: If comingling means faster delivery then I'm all for it, just take care of counterfeiting separately.

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#124

Post by reaperducer »

gnicholas wrote: post #110
jrockway wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Free 2 day shipping” = prepaid unlimited 2 day shipping that costs $120, and is bundled with some streaming content.

Or if you're into Amazon's streaming video offerings, it's like paying for the video and getting the shipping for free.

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#125

Post by elliekelly »

Animats wrote: post #122
elliekelly wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

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 cus…

> At least in Pennsylvania. This decision is based on state law.

Only in part. Section B @ page 21 is the Court outlining their reasoning under the Second Restatement of Torts which has been adopted in some form or another in most states. The court could have ended with the Pennsylvania four-factor analysis but the ruling would have definitely been limited in scope. Instead, the 3rd Circuit has anticipated this case going to the Supreme Court and went through the effort of detailing the logic for a SCOTUS ruling that would hold Amazon accountable beyond the boundaries of Pennsylvania as well.

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#126

Post by michaelmrose »

ceejayoz wrote: post #36
michaelmrose wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prod…

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 .

It's not clear that you can limit a buyer's ability to resell it on any market without a contract with the buyer that may or may not be legal or enforcable based on jurisdiction. It also doesn't seem likely that people willing to defraud people with any agreement.

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#127

Post by ryanmarsh »

throw20102010 wrote: post #10

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 th…

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.

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#128

Post by tbabb »

Everyone is rightly ragging on Amazon for being terribly irresponsible and consumer-hostile in allowing counterfeit products to be sold on their platform.

But doing what CVS is doing (independently testing all their stocked products) is not the solution. This is ahem WHAT REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE FOR. The FDA needs to do its gottdang job and test and regulate supplements. This is utterly shameful for a first-world country that consumers can't be certain that pills on shelves contain what they purport to.

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#129

Post by c3534l »

nordsieck wrote: post #84
jimktrains2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are defiantly people delivering stuff our of cars and cargo vans. I haven't had an amazon order come via UPS or FedEx in a while.

>> That would be UPS doing that, not Amazon. > No, there are defiantly people delivering stuff our of cars and cargo vans. I haven't had an amazon order come via UPS or FedEx in a while. That is the delivery person doing that. The worst is when delivery personnel don't ring or knock, they just slap a "tried to deliver" slip on your door because it's faster for them.

I live in a city and people who can't figure out the call box will just leave packages in the street. Packages get stolen in as little as 20 minutes. I guess it all makes sense now. The morning people will at least leave it just behind the front door where a package might survive for hours.

Re: Amazon Warns Customers: Those Supplements Might Be Fake

#130

Post by greenyoda »

slg wrote: post #100
ajross wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fung…

>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" Sounds like it is time for a "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Retail Products" with the first entry being that every item with the same SKU is identical to every other item with that SKU. You would think at the ve…

It's not just products for human consumption that can cause injury. A shoddily made counterfeit phone charger can start a fire and burn down your house.
Post reply on HN