[Lazare]

> At least four customers complained that the merchandise was not authentic.

According to the article, one customer said the item didn't fit, and wondered if it might be a knock-off, but they didn't outright claim it was. And the other three complained about packaging. Depending on how you score it that's ZERO customers complaining, or maybe one at most.

> The evidence of authenticity was illegible. [...] And this is just what I learned from an article from HIS point of view.

That was Amazon's claim; he claimed he sent in the correct, authentic, legible invoices, and they were rejected out of hand because Amazon refused to accept invoices dated in the year the merchandise was purchased, and instead wanted invoices dated in a different incorrect year.

> If he had paid to have his stuff returned

He claimed he tried at one point and the web portal rejected it.

Obviously, I don't know who's right here, and some of his claims are a bit confusing. And he does admit to ignoring some notices. Still, if you're evaluating his story as he presents it, taking his claims at face value, then: His evidence was not illegible, no (or at most one) customer alleged fake items, and he did make an effort to retrieve the merchandise.

[bagacrap]

"either illegible or didn't match the records of the brand owners" --- so Amazon has done some due diligence by reaching out to other parties to the sales, and found that these receipts are likely counterfeit. Besides which, I'm not sure how even valid receipts prove that the inventory is legit; how do you know the receipts refer to this particular merchandise and not some other legitimate purchase? It seems entirely plausible to me that the retailer's brick and mortar started to fail, so he cut costs by switching to counterfeit goods. It still failed, so he tried to hawk them on Amazon. Amazon caught him, but he tried to fool them with old receipts. Amazon demanded he retrieve his goods, but he let Amazon destroy them so that he could sue for some imaginary value and extract money out of them that way.

Why does a journalist feel the need to get involved here? This seems like a job for the lawyers.

[LorenPechtel]

Or Amazon's customer support can't read scans of pieces of paper that have been around for a while.

[Lazare]

> It seems entirely plausible to me

That is plausible. It's also plausible Amazon, who famously has poor customer service and often makes mistakes when their automated system glitch, has done so yet again.

You are, of course, free to assume that in a dispute one party is telling the unvarnished truth and the other is lying.

[megous]

Sounds like a good cautionary tale for others, so why not?