I have a similar issue; I have a $10 self published book on Amazon and somebody re-listed with an earlier (like 1900!) publication date, so it shows up first when looking for it and it's listed at like $100.

I don't know who can fall for this in my case but I'm sure if they can they have probably done this at scale. When I search in Amazon I see a lot of results with wide range of prices so I'm sure some people are just counting on showing up on results, users being "lazy" and arbitraging the difference between their listing and the cheapest vendor.

I have ordered 2 service manuals on eBay, and both times I got some shitty photocopies of the official manual, yet paid full price for the official manuals. You email the vendors and ask why you got this shitty copy, and they claim it's official, and that they're licensed by the company to reproduce them. So eBay won't do shit.

And if we charge back eBay they just prevent us from using their marketplace.

> The copied book is identical, cover and all, images in the Amazon listing too ... Amazon chose to do nothing.

Amazon will still get paid whether they sell the real book or a knock off, either way. It's not like a small time author has the resources to actually do something about it in court.

I refuse to give money to a business that behaves the way Amazon does.

He should just sue for copyright infringement.

IIRC: Amazon won't tell him who it is and he suspects it's just someone out of legal reach / as the book is just self published his legal resources are pretty limited.

Which is what the infringers hope - and the major engine driving much of Amazon's profits.

Fraud.

I remember when people used to (heck still do) get worked up about Walmart but those same people not only order from Amazon all the time, they even join B mans private club (Prime).

You sue Amazon for contributory infringement. Subpoena for the number of fraudulent copies they sold and then press for triple damages plus all of your fees. Even if that number is tiny you'll cost them much more in legal bills.

I'm not sure why I'd spend $50k forcing Amazon to spend $250k. They can play that game a lot longer than me.

Honestly, all the stories in this thread make me very glad I canceled my Prime subscription. I still use Amazon occasionally, but now most of my purchases go direct. With the exception of books; there I order from my local bookstore.

> Amazon won't tell him who it is

Does that matter to the police? Surely police reports don't have to include the name of who you think caused you some injury.

"It's a civil matter"

The police are never going to bother trying to seriously curtail online fraud. There's a reason why so many scam calls try to trick vulnerable people into paying them with iTunes gift cards and Google Play gift codes. Even with the added friction and blatantly farcical nature of the scam they find it more profitable to try and get the funds that way. They undoubtedly lose plenty of victims who might have been tricked into sending it through Western Union, mailing cash, or a cashier's check. They're paying a steep price to funnel it through the app store between the platform fees and whatever they pay the merchant that's laundering the funds for them.

They do that because they know that Apple is never going to try to claw back funds and the police are never going to force Apple to return the money that's still sitting in their accounts. You can call Apple 30 minutes after giving the scammers the code and without fail "oh sorry, the funds are gone!" https://i.imgur.com/oijXbLD.jpeg

That's the status quo, the courts are your only remedy here and you're going to lose trying to sue Amazon over a fraudulent seller. Best case scenario you manage to get Amazon to identify the seller and find out they're in a foreign jurisdiction and for all practical reasons untouchable as far as legal recourse is concerned.

Amazon are selling it; if it's tortuously acquired he can sue them.

My opinion, not legal advice.

Companies are taking a broad interpretation of Section 230 and claim that the law shields tech companies from all liability for their platform[1], online and off, and not just liability for hosting user created content.

Lower level courts seem to agree with them, although one such case has been fought all the way to the Supreme Court[2].

[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230...

[2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publicati...

So just having a web shop shields you for example from the consequences of selling counterfeit goods? How does that work?

They'll argue that they aren't liable for the crimes that users of their platform commit using their platform and cite Section 230 of the CDA.

Which makes no sense, since CDA's Section 230 is saying nothing about being an accomplice to crimes, only about not being treated as the publisher or speaker of some information.

I agree, and there's a case that's gone to the Supreme Court over this, so we'll see how they rule.