These issues of keeping track of stuff seem utterly trivial compared to what Amazon already does. I fail to see why this is a problem. I also fail to see why requiring businesses to follow the law is a bad thing. If it's too difficult, then talk to the legislators, don't just ignore the rules and regulations in place.
It might not be enforceable but it would take a very brave or wealthy individual to choose to do something that might make Amazon decide to sick their lawyers on you.
Months in court to prove innocence is still a heavy cost to pay.
Perhaps Amazon are concerned that if they do not intervene, the legislature will make them liable for what they sell, and have supposed that this way is cheaper.
Exactly this. If Amazon can't police their marketplace then bad luck, you thought you had become more competitive by solving real world problems with tech, but actually you had just found novel ways to ignore the law. "I can't comply with the law because that would break my novel business idea", is exactly the thing that I keep hearing from tech companies, and it is the same level of nonsense as complaining that trading-standards (or whatever you guys have in the US) shut down for market stall for selling knock-off goods.
If the goods are on your site, then you are responsible for them being there. Sure it costs a lot, like it costs a lot to run an auction house. Boo hoo
the same way every other company in the world does? by engaging with customers, measuring feedback and common sense.
you seem to be confusing permissible with law with the right way for a company to act, whay they did may have been legal, but it was very very obviously wrong, they understand that, everyone else does.
changing the laws to be somewhat sensible would obviously be a better solution, but amazon doesnt have that luxury, so they should strive to be making the best judgement decisions they can.
It didn't put itself above the law, because it closed down instead. That's complying with the law. Considering the amount fines they we're threatned with, I agree it was too risky operate. They would have only had to made a few mistakes and they would risk a massive fine.
Amazon has a huge catalog compared to other retailers, and trying to categorise that without mistakes would be difficult and prone to errors.
Amazon can't send cops to my house if I decide I'm gonna keep selling my product on eBay or register for a new Amazon seller account. If you keep trying to run a business that's been condemned by local government eventually cops will show up and stop you from running that business.
The stakes are lower in the case of Amazon. You're not renting shop space. You're not sitting on as much inventory. You can jump ship more easily (kind of hard to relocate your business to another location). The trade-off is that they can also kick you out more easily.
>Amazon has several requirements for third-party sellers on its website: They must provide a business name, address, contact information, a valid credit card, and tax identity information.
I am not saying it's easy to manage, I am saying something far more critical of Amazon and others that hide behind this "it's too hard to do, wah, wah" excuse:
If it is too difficult to prevent your customers from being defrauded when they do business with you, find another business model.
No business has an inalienable right to exist, much less an inalienable right to choose whatever business model they like and then shrug their shoulders at whether they are complicit in crimes against their own customers.
Nobody ordered Amazon to allow other merchants on their platform. Nobody told Amazon that comingling goods with third parties was an acceptable way to cut their costs and become more "efficient" at a business.
They chose to do these things, and it is on them to find a way to stop stealing from their customers, or face criticism from people like me.
I do not accept "It is too hard to police fraud" as an excuse for making money from fraud. I also do not accept "everybody's doing it" as an excuse.
Thanks! I meant how would Amazon prevent it at all. (But maybe they would just sue you. But ... can't you just create a separate company to conduct off-Amazon business?)
The problem here is Amazon making it ridiculously easy for people outside of our legislatures reach to commit crimes. So, the logical option is to punish Amazon (and similar companies) for distribution of counterfeits.
Is it legal what Amazon is doing (or rather, not doing)? Well, make it illegal.
Yet there's this alternate universe where there are laws against facilitating a crime, receiving stolen property, etc. I'm not saying that sort of thing applies to Amazon, just saying isn't it weird that it doesn't?
The way to avoid this is for Amazon to hold itself accountable, or, if it is unable to do so, a government. You're telling me the trillion-dollar logistics company can't figure out how to make sure people get the correct items?
Isn’t it Amazon’s job to do due diligence that sellers aren’t committing outright fraud on their platform? I’m not sure what you mean by “allowed”, but I would have zero problem doing exactly the same to Amazon ethically given they actively, on purpose, create this problem in the first place.
Doing something like this is the only way to effect any sort of change anyway. It’s not like regulators are particularly interested in solving this problem. And clearly neither is Amazon. So maybe enough returns where they have to eat the cost will actually motivate them to enact some change.
reply