In the UK the law is clear and explicit: it’s on the retailer (and not the manufacturer or wholesaler) to make sure the goods are “Fit for purpose”, “As described”, and of “Satisfactory quality”.
There’s no wiggle room for “consumer guessed the goods might not be as described”.
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-...
I can imagine there are some US jurisdictions where something similar is also true.
Probably in most US jurisdictions; to my knowledge generally Amazon has failed in court where they have tried to escape obligations of sellers by pretending not to be retailer but a marketplace facilitator, and generally sellers are going to be obligated to refund if they accept money and don’t deliver the product represented.
Under the UCC, for instance, the buyer would not only be entitled to refund, would also be entitled to make a good faith purchase of substitute goods matching what the seller represented, and also recover the difference between the purchase price of the substitute goods and the purchase price of the original goods (the latter already covered by the refund) or, even if they don’t “cover” with a substitute, recover the amount by which fair market price of a substitute at the time the buyer learned the goods were not as described exceeds the refund. (See, UCC Sections 2-711 through 2-713.) [0]
> If you order something you know is junk
Suspecting and actual knowledge are…different things.
But you can’t provide references. You haven’t even explained why you think this fits into the legal definition of fraud (hint: it doesn’t).