[bapak]

> Amazon actively avoided being able to track it.

Is that real? I find it hard to believe that Amazon effectively accepted stock from third parties "as is" and lost track of where it came from. It's more likely that they don't tell you than they don't track.

[AnssiH]

No, it is not true, just a common myth.

In the seller documentation they say they can track the source of commingled inventory - they achieve this by never putting them on the same physical shelf location.

Also mentioned by Amazon spokesman in e.g. this article: https://archive.is/ra6RT

> Amazon can also track the original seller of each unit

[0manrho]

A fair point and important distinction, but so is the difference between "we CAN" and "we WILL/DO". That "myth" didn't come out of thin air. It's a result of of amazon not doing that unless they felt it financially prudent to do so/until enough people bitched about it.

The OP article is exhibit A for how common of an issue this was.

[mcherm]

We know that they would not provide such tracking for those conducting fraud investigations. You can believe they intentionally didn't track the source or that they intentionally refused to share the information to root out fraud; either one is a very bad look for Amazon.

I'm glad to see this change.

[hnlmorg]

That’s a worse situation then because Amazon would then be intentionally withholding data in counterfeiting investigations.

[kotaKat]

It wouldn't surprise me. Amazon knows where every item is in its FC and knows the motions of every item's placement, from the grand scheme of things.

It's not that hard to then track back from an order exactly what bin or tote or shelf the item was pulled from, then look at what shipment(s) that bin's items came from to figure out what supplier it came from.

They know the counterfeit goods came in and were stowed to bin XYZ and they know that someone pulled from XYZ...