this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026

491 points (98.8% liked)

Not The Onion

20202 readers

2717 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

491

Small business owners say Amazon is selling their products without permission (www.newschannel5.com)

submitted 19 hours ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"I typed in YamzWorld into the Amazon app and lo and behold there were all my products there with my pictures from my website as well," Montes-Tarazas said.

While he receives payment for sales, Montes-Tarazas said the arrangement strips away his ability to build direct customer relationships.

"I do get the sale and I do get the money, but customers never get to interact with my website, they have no ability to sign up for my mailing list. They have no idea who I am as an artist or what I stand for," Montes-Tarazas said.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago

Amazon has been drop shipping like this for a while, my neighbor bought 5 gallons of driveway sealer on Amazon pre pandemic and it shipped from a Home Depot. Seller listed as Amazon no indication of coming from a home depot at all until he got a tracking number for a location in Kentucky.

The weird part was it was the same cost as the Home Depot website so if it was just drop shipping with no backend deal it Amazon didn't make any money from it.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 58 points 13 hours ago

Ah this is how GrubHub, Uber eats, and other food delivery operated during the pandemic! They literally pretended like restaurants were on board, called in the order themselves, sent freelancers and then skimmed off the top.

It was so destructive to many restaurants that they were forced to change. Bad delivery drivers would tank their Google/Yelp reviews. Many created a custom window/spot for food delivery because they wouldn't know which were real call-ins vs food delivery.

Food delivery won because of cheating.

And Amazon is doing the same.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 21 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

They have no ability to sign up for my mailing list

Do people ever do that on purpose?

[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

I'm subscribed to a skeleton themed shit posting account's merch advertisements. I don't think I've ever bought anything but his shirts are literally just shitposts. It's nice to still get weird twitter humor without having to touch twitter.

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 18 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, i sign up people i don't like

[–] bonenode@piefed.social 3 points 5 hours ago

[–] cappielung@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Oh shit, that's why I'm on so many goddamn mailing lists!

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, and happy new year you filthy animal

[–] KingDingbat@lemmy.world 59 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Besides all the obvious problems with this, the biggest one I see coming that I don't see many people talking about is how Amazon will inevitably use this to put others out of business if they don't cooperate with Amazon. They've already done this hardball game with sellers voer the last decade that if you don't sell on Amazon for an unsustainable low price + pay Amazon fees you'll find yourself losing business to Amazon's stolen copies of your products under the "Amazon Basics" brands. Well proven they do this, and I can see that if you find yourself scraped by this new AI program and you fight it, you're going to be getting a visit from the Amazon Mafia.

[–] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 79 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Could he not put terms of use on his website prohibiting the use by AI agents, and sue Amazon if they don't comply?

[–] cybervseas@lemmy.world 90 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

Filing a suit against Amazon… which attorney is going to take that case, and how much money would you need to pay them? 😕

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

There are about 1.3 million attorneys in the United States in 2026. Find a cross section between that and “consequences? Fuck it” and that’s your group.

There’s likely plenty of people who will happily make good trouble fighting Amazon.

Also, people know people. I myself have a friend of a friend with incredibly powerful legal weight that wants to take a swing at my employer. They are waiting for them to cross a line and then I just need to agree to let them go nuts.

That situation is NOT rare. And powerful people know this. So they paint this picture of them being indestructible. But it’s a lie.

What happens if Amazon just stops existing one day?

Literally nothing. They are buried into all e-commerce like a fucking tick. They pretty much own the cloud, even if Google and Microsoft tell you otherwise. But everything they’ve done is already done. The blueprint is out there. The rough edges sanded down. There are no questions, which means recreating such a thing is much less risky and expensive now than it used to be.

And Amazon knows this.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 52 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Some lawyers would be very happy to go up against big tech since they have so much money that it's often cheaper for them to just buy the problem away

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 19 points 18 hours ago

Exactly. A bunch of lawyers work on contingency.

[–] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 22 points 18 hours ago

It's not like every lawyer in the world is quaking in their boots at the mere thought of going up against Amazon.

[–] forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

That's not necessarily how it works. If Amazon is guilty, they'll settle for an easy win

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 6 points 17 hours ago

Depends though. If they think they're guilty but that it'll be impractical to prove it if they delay the case in court for one to two business centuries, they'll do it

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Weird clauses in terms of use are frequently just toilet paper when it actually comes down to enforcing them in court. You can "sue" but you might just win $1 because the judge would find that you have not suffered any monetary damages. You got paid for the item, after all, and "building a relationship with your customers" has no quantifiable and measurable value which can be proven in court, so judges default to one dollar.

There is also the aspect of whether an AI agent has the legal capacity to contract on behalf of Amazon or the buyer, and on whose behalf they contract if they do. I'm not aware of any American cases which have held that AI agents are "agents" (an entity with the legal power to act on behalf of another) within the meaning given to that word under the law of agency. The Civil Resolution Tribunal in British Columbia, Canada, ruled in Moffat v. Air Canada that AI chatbots can bind the organisation who uses them and makes them available to customers. This opinion is not binding precedent, but I think courts worldwide should use it as a template for AI agency powers. If the AI has no power to contract, then the sale is void in its entirety.

I believe Amazon would argue three points:

That the AI agent has power to contract, but that the "user" of the AI is the shopper, and Amazon is merely providing the agent for the shopper to use.
That if the clause banning AI agents from buying is enforceable, it voids the transaction in its entirety, and thus the seller owes Amazon a refund.
That even if the AI had the power to bind Amazon, that the ability to build direct customer relationships has no proven dollar value and thus damages should be limited to nominal amounts (i.e. one dollar).

[–] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

"building a relationship with your customers" has no quantifiable and measurable value which can be proven in court

With utm tags in weekly news letters etc. you can pretty easily calculate traffic coming to your site and conversion rates of how many people make purchases after clicking links.

And even without utm tags you can show spikes in purchases and traffic after sending emails.

It would be easy to show data: This many people go to my site This % of those people subscribe to my mailing list. This many % of people buy after receiving the email. Average purchase is xx$.

This many people never went to my site because amazon.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 6 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (3 children)

Isn't this just like Doordash though? I'm not sure how these were resolved though.

In May 2021, DoorDash was criticized for unauthorized listings of restaurants who had not given permission to appear on the app.[72] The company was sued by Lona's Lil Eats in St. Louis, with the lawsuit claiming that DoorDash had listed them without permission, then prevented any orders to the restaurant from going through and redirecting customers to other restaurants instead, because Lona's was "too far away," when in reality it had not paid DoorDash a fee for listing.[73] This aspect of DoorDash's business practice is illegal in California.[73]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Litigation_for_illegal_unauthorized_restaurant_listing

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting! I can't imagine Amazon would want to argue #2, though, since it seems like that would completely undercut their ability to use AI agents in this way.

I hadn't really thought about the implications of the ability of an AI agent to contract, though. That seems like really murky (and intriguing) territory; whether they can or cant, either way would have a lot of interesting implications.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] officermike@lemmy.world 24 points 18 hours ago

On the one hand, I'd like to support independent stores, and I hate the shoehorning of AI into every part of the online experience. On the other hand, I like the reduced risk exposure of not providing my payment details or email address to yet another vendor. I hate that every online transaction seems to be interpreted as consent to receive more junk newsletters. Yes, I want to buy your product. No, I don't want to be signed up for your newsletter or have my email address sold to a third party. I buy thing, you send thing, end of transaction.

[–] KingDingbat@lemmy.world 20 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (15 children)

I have been trying to break my Amzon Addiction for years. This did it. Walmart is lesser evil now.

[–] toxicbubble@lemmy.world 15 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

workers pissing in bottles wasn't enough for you?

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 10 points 17 hours ago

Are we talking about Amazon or Walmart?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments