Hacker News Reader

Comment by rossjudson | Hacker News Reader

Because the end of the path here for Amazon is destruction of the inventory in question, I guess we'll never really know what's real or not. There's nothing to be inspected...which seems rather problematic, right? In criminal cases people don't run around destroying evidence. That's viewed rather negatively by judges.

So here we have Amazon destroying the inventory in question. No way to have even a partial sample of that inventory still available for checking? No laws that regulate how and when Amazon can destroy inventory, particularly in the presence of mandatory arbitration? No checks and balances on that process at all?

View on HN

In any case it could be very hard to prove that the items are fake by inspection, it’s mostly a fight about distribution and the supply channel.

If you can't tell they're fake by inspection how did the complaining customers identify them as fake?

There's a few assumptions here. I'd say the assumptions are that

1. Amazon knows the fakes, if they exist, came specifically from this seller. I doubt this because of their comingling problems.

2. That the threshold of complaints required to initiate this type of action is a reasonable one. And furthermore that the complaints are valid. It could be a matter of a few 3rd party competitors, it could be the original wholesaler trying to throw a wrench into Amazon's systems, it could be customers who are angling for credits, free products etc. As well all of this plays with assumption #1 and comingling.

I think you accidentally replied to the wrong comment.

often fakes (in fashion at least) are just overquota items produced from the same sweatshop that produce the legit items, which the sweatshops sell on the side to earn that dollar more per month.

brands thus moved to control counterfeit pursuing anything that isn't coming off their sales chain end to end, even if the fake is virtually identical to the legit product.

No they aren't, that's just what people manufacturing fakes have managed to convince people is the case. (Somehow, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny)

https://corrierefiorentino.corriere.it/firenze/notizie/crona...

> Mediante alcune aziende dell’hinterland fiorentino, pratese e dell’empolese - le stesse che producono quelle che poi diventano le vere borse firmate - il gruppo provvedeva a tutte le fasi produttive e commerciali

your turn.

The article quotes the two reviews which claim the items are fake; it's pretty clear the people are just throwing out the claim of "fake" to get leverage. Amazon asked the seller for the receipts from the manufacturers to prove that they were real; he gave them, but Amazon said they didn't count because they were more than a year old. But that's when he actually bought the merchandise, so I'm not sure what Amazon expected him to do.

"Amazon said they didn't count because they were more than a year old."

According to the seller that was Amazon's issue with the receipts. According to Amazon the issue was the receipts provided were either illegible or didn't match records from the manufacturers. In other words they appeared to be faked receipts.

Amazon nowhere says that the invoices appear to be fake. Amazon’s reply is: “Illegible or didn't match records” - Illegible can mean anything, for example older as 365 days, as stated in the article. The second part about records not matching is just company speak to make it look like the vendor is to blame. It’s intentionally vague. My wife worked as a vendor manager at Amazon and she never checked any manufacturer receipts/had a way to check them.

Inventory receipt management very much sounds like something that Amazon should have as part of its interface (presuming it's not already). Sellers should be able to upload receipts/purchase orders to their accounts at any time.

It's just good sense to have all of these images available at all time, regardless of selling platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com