[AbacusAvenger]

Amazon would still be in charge of enforcement, they'd just be held liable for not doing so. Which is not a pleasant place to be, because blocking automation is not an easy problem, and it's difficult to measure success.

[JimtheCoder]

"Amazon would still be in charge of enforcement"

Is this true? Based on my reading of the proposed rules, it would be the product owner who would be responsible, not the platform.

I don't think Amazon Basics or any of their other brands are participating in this sort of behaviour.

I could be wrong, though...

[meragrin_]

> Is this true? Based on my reading of the proposed rules, it would be the product owner who would be responsible, not the platform.

From my reading, Amazon is only responsible for whatever they knowingly participate in. If sellers and manufacturers participate in it without Amazon's knowledge, Amazon has no required enforcement.

[jkaplowitz]

> blocking automation is not an easy problem

Amazon is very much willing and able to tackle difficult problems, as repeatedly demonstrated throughout their history. Admittedly they prefer to choose which difficult problems they tackle, but still.

[justrealist]

The difficulty of a problem scales in an adversarial environment.

[jkaplowitz]

Yes. But the problem is that Amazon themselves would be an adversary to the idea of putting in the required effort for no financial benefit to their business, not that they would be trying to stop other adversaries.

They have solved or attempted to solve plenty of problems just as hard as this one, even acknowledging that this is an adversarial environment. But they generally only choose to do so when the payoff to them is worth the effort. In other words, they can properly tackle it, but they wouldn’t want to.