Even if they are fake, destroying it is extreme. They should just levy fines or charges on the storage and hold on to it. Atleast not until the seller’s case is open with them. I don’t get how they could be so bad at this.
Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
21–30 of 363 posts
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#22Seems odd the reporter doesn’t verify the authenticity/quality of the submitted invoices.
Surely he could produce copies for the reporter?
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#23This is a case for the courts. The article is completely one sided, and there’s no way to know whether or not some or much or most of the merchandise was counterfeit. He does admit to ignoring up to 11 notices that his inventory would be destroyed if left unclaimed. He mentions conflicting dates for the notices but we’ve no way of knowing to make of that. I don’t know what to say other that I read the piece with some…
Don’t forget that sellers agree to an arbitration clause, so a legal recourse in court is impossible.
[deleted]
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#24The merchants must navigate a largely automated, guilty-until-proven-innocent process in which Amazon serves as judge and jury. Their emails and calls can go unanswered, or Amazon's replies are incomprehensible, making sellers suspect they're at the mercy of algorithms with little human oversight. This is something our modern society was and is not ready for. Bureaucracy and the bureaucrats that administered it is a…
Being an Android developer is a similar experience. If your app gets removed from Google Play, even if it's clearly by mistake, good luck having it reinstated. Unless you know a googler or two. Then it's a breeze. Going through official channels you'll be hitting a wall.
Doubt that is true. Every company has internal policies to stop favoritism like that.
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#25Even if they are fake, destroying it is extreme. They should just levy fines or charges on the storage and hold on to it. Atleast not until the seller’s case is open with them. I don’t get how they could be so bad at this.
Fakes should 100% be destroyed
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#26There are a lot of complaints about allegedly fake merchandise on Amazon and people asking for a crackdown. This is what the other side of that story looks like. The old solution of Amazon mostly ignoring the fakes and just compensating people who complain avoids this scenario.
>The old solution of Amazon mostly ignoring the fakes and just compensating people who complain avoids this scenario.
Being a proper retailer and sourcing goods from reputable sources, performing quality control, and then reselling them to the public without the commingling nonsense also avoids this scenario.
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#27The merchants must navigate a largely automated, guilty-until-proven-innocent process in which Amazon serves as judge and jury. Their emails and calls can go unanswered, or Amazon's replies are incomprehensible, making sellers suspect they're at the mercy of algorithms with little human oversight. This is something our modern society was and is not ready for. Bureaucracy and the bureaucrats that administered it is a…
It looks inevitable that the law will have to get involved for western users of the big platforms. I don't know if that will fly in the US. Tolerating life & death on the complete lack of structure in tech decision making has to come to an end eventually, at least on particular financial outcomes.
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#28The merchants must navigate a largely automated, guilty-until-proven-innocent process in which Amazon serves as judge and jury. Their emails and calls can go unanswered, or Amazon's replies are incomprehensible, making sellers suspect they're at the mercy of algorithms with little human oversight. This is something our modern society was and is not ready for. Bureaucracy and the bureaucrats that administered it is a…
[deleted]
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#29Even if they are fake, destroying it is extreme. They should just levy fines or charges on the storage and hold on to it. Atleast not until the seller’s case is open with them. I don’t get how they could be so bad at this.
If they are fakes then it’s fraud and the courts should get involved. But why would Amazon give the courts that power when they can just do whatever they want.
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#30So he had $1.5m in merchandise that was totally authentic, sent it all to Amazon and yet couldn't reclaim it? And he has no insurance on literally a million and a half of clothing? How did he go from holding $1.5M of merch for over a year to being homeless and having to couch surf? So, I had this $2M bridge up in Wisconsin, but Elon Musk took it out with a cybertruck one night after a few too many mimosas and...
Is there any insurance that would pay for merchandise that Amazon destroyed because they determined that it's fake? Why would the insurance company take his side when they could just side with Amazon and save $1.5M? He can produce invoices that show he bought $1.5M of legit merchandise, but how can he prove that what he sent to Amazon was not fake?
He can show invoices that are over a year old. Which means that for at least a year, he held _at least_ two cargo containers of high end clothing somewhere before selling them in bulk on Amazon. He has no warehouses, no physical storefront, nothing - that doesn't strike you as strange for someone with 1.5M of merchandise?
That is a _ton_ of merchandise both in terms of physical bulk and space, and in cost to have sitting around. Unless he's doing tens of millions of sales a year, that is way too much inventory to have at rest.
Insurance could tell you nothing was ever covered and never spend a dime - but insurance is a heavily audited industry and at the very least they would do an investigation. Keep in mind, it's not like Amazon got in a few cargo containers of high end clothing and fed them into a shredder - they kept in a warehouse and sold it and got enough complaints about them not being genuine articles that they de-shelved them from inventory, gave him 30 days to retrieve them and only then after his refusal had them destroyed.
For what it's worth, removing THAT much merchandising from shelving is a serious labor and time sink. You don't do that because you got one or two complaints about crushed boxes or off sizes.
Which think of this in reverse - if Amazon told you that you needed to retrieve your $1.5M of merchandise in 30 days or it would be destroyed, would you just roll the dice on that? Even if you can't afford freight, you'd still go haul as much as you can in whatever you drive and hock it on the corner.
The only reason you would let Amazon bulk destroy merchandise (with significant notice and several reminders from them, after signing a contract that pre-dictates out the terms of rejected merchandise), the only reason you would let merchandise sit like that, is if it has no significant value. When the cost of freight exceeds the cost of goods - then yeah, don't freight it and absorb the loss because it's less damage.