[lph]

It's absolutely trivial if you have a human review changes. But that's expensive. So I'd assert the problem is trivial but expensive, and Amazon lacks the proper incentives to do anything about it: they make money from fraudulent sales. It's a short-term incentive to not solve the problem. Sure, there's a long-term cost that this fraud slowly erodes Amazon's reputation, but it's hard to measure and its consequences are way beyond the horizon of the next quarterly report.

[VBprogrammer]

They should charge for changing listings. If not in money by taking the listing down for an indefinite period with some vague "in review" period.

[PebblesRox]

Seems like this would hurt vendors making legitimate changes more than fraudulent vendors.

[krisoft]

> It's absolutely trivial if you have a human review changes.

There is nothing trivial about that. At amazon’s scale that is an army who needs to be hired, trained, prevented from colluding with scammers, quality controlled, etc etc.