This isn't a hypothetical; you can already buy stuff from tons of Chinese companies online -- good luck getting any recourse in a Chinese court if you have a dispute.

That is why I bought from Amazon and not Chinese companies. little did I know Amazon is No better.

> That is why I bought from Amazon and not Chinese companies. little did I know Amazon is No better.

There is a big difference between buying from Amazon and buying from company X, fulfilled by Amazon.

That difference is not obvious, especially for infrequent users or less-technical users.

Not from a consumer point of view: same website, same listing, same cart, same checkout and payment process. "AMAZON" even appears on the bank statement.

Literally the only difference is a tiny icon on the product page saying "Marketplace".

I could imagine maybe a law requiring foreign companies to obtain a bond when selling consumer goods, if they don't have substantial presence in the U.S. This bond would be a surety that consumers could recover damages in the case of negligence, at least up to a certain amount. I don't see the argument for requiring Amazon to perform that service, though.

Suppose the foreign entity decided to flout that law, and never did acquire a bond, or reported a nonexistent bond. Would it be Amazon's responsibility to detect this situation, and what remedy would be available to the customer regardless?

It should be a registered bond with a trusted source. You wouldn't trust escrow funds that weren't held by a trustworthy party if you were involved in real estate.

Would Amazon then check and enforce the status/claims against the bond as part of processing each order? It's an interesting idea for sure.

It seems like this would put a total stop to inventory commingling, which does sound attractive, at an abstract level.

Letter of Guarantee?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/letter_of_guarantee.asp