Your "What about Kirkland" -ism is irrelevant.

A big company can stall a copyright lawsuit for as long as it wants. Small companies cannot win against Amazon in court.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-14-fi-19337-...

Small victories like the chain wrench lawsuit against Sears happen. But they are rare.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bionic-wrench-sea...

It’s not whataboutism at all. Only people that don’t know that housebrands have been a thing forever would think that the evil Amazon is doing something unique.

And CVS follows the formula of name brand OTC drugs down to the very ingrediant to make house brands. You can’t copyright a shirt measurement.

And before you call me an “Amazon shill”. I got PIPed from Amazon less than two months ago. I’m the last person who has any love for Amazon. Honestly I don’t have any feeling either way. It was just my 8th job over 25 years, they gave me a nice check and I had a comparable offer within two weeks.

The major difference here is that Amazon has major market power as an online mall.

Like with the sears example, large 'mall' like organizations do outright steal designs and stonewall the original copyright holder.

A random housebrand does not have access to Amazon's statistics, logistics or reach. Amazon is looking at stats that they hide from their providers, to choose who to copy, then out-price the original seller. (Due to inhouse logistics)

They are not even remotely the same thing.

And CVS doesn’t have major power when it comes to selling drugs and knowing which ones it should knock off with home brands? Every single store knows what to knock off based on what it sells.

And Walmart sells a lot more than Amazon.

You don’t think that every store knows how to undercut other products in its own store with house brands?