This is such a basic issue that I don't understand why USPS or some other shipper w/ bricks-n-mortar haven't stepped up to offer some sort of package shipping certification.
If I was the seller it could work as simply as me bringing the item to a shipper who would take their own photos and weigh the items being packaged up as well as some check that the item is as being described to the recipient. In turn the shipper would get an extra fee.
For high value items (i.e. like OP's camera) it would certainly be in everyone's best interest and platforms like ebay, Facebook, Amazon could insist that all parties use this type of service or relinquish their ability to dispute.
At least for camera equipment, this does exist. You can take your camera to B&H's used department, and they will buy it from you. You can also go to B&H's used department and buy a used camera from them.
The advantage of this over Amazon is that as a seller, you know B&H isn't going to screw you over in any way, and if they do, you know where to serve your lawsuit. A trusted business with a physical location is the counterparty in your transaction, which makes it pretty low risk. As a buyer, you know B&H is trustworthy and you can come back to the store and have a problem resolved.
Amazon offers nothing in a typical Amazon.com transaction beyond matching buyer and seller. They can't trust the buyer, and they can't trust the seller. So they can't really help with the transaction in any way, they are just there to take a cut for basically nothing. B&H takes a larger cut, but they actually do something.
Of course, people like money, so Amazon is rolling in it while most people don't even know that they can sell their camera to B&H. (I've bought used stuff from them because I don't trust random eBay listings, but never sold anything because the amount of money they offer wasn't worth it to me.)
This is actually what Sweetwater does too when it comes to music gear.
I've gotten a few duds from Amazon in the past, but smaller, focused online stores like Sweetwater will inspect your gear for you before shipping it out to you, will give you a direct line to a sales+support person. In fact they'll even give you the email of the entire executive team of the company if you want to contact them directly.
As much as I like free Prime shipping, for higher end gear I'd much rather have access to a real person with expertise in the gear I'm purchasing, and a brand name and reputation to protect. I was not a believer at first, staunchly sticking to Amazon, but everything I've gotten from them has been top notch and without any defects, so I became a convert.
Sure, but B&H is probably going to take a good 30% premium in that transaction, if not more. Which is certainly better than losing a camera and getting 0% back...
Over 1000 transactions, you’d do better selling on Amazon. On one transaction, your statistical outcome is still the same, but you run the risk of hitting that one bad outcome.
> Of course, people like money, so Amazon is rolling in it while most people don't even know that they can sell their camera to B&H.
But people don't like risk, either. To choose one of very many examples: consumers will often pay more for "safe" brands they're sure will be good than take a risk on something new that's significantly cheaper.
Obviously, Amazon is doing better than B&H, but there's other explanations for that, and it's not like B&H is doing poorly.
> but never sold anything because the amount of money they offer wasn't worth it to me.
Ok, so this is a serious problem, wont you agree? But is it an unavoidable one? Would it be possible to get something in-between, where it's both a good deal and adds a lot of trust? I suspect the physical presence part is a big driver of cost. Both because of rent, but also wages. And because the camera is not displayed to the whole country, worse matching of buyer and seller.
I don't think people pay that well for used camera gear. Nobody wants last year's model for the price of this year's model, even if it still takes good photos.
In my case, I wanted to sell the previous model of a camera after the new one came out. To upgrade, of course. They offered about $100 on a $400 camera, and sold used ones for about $300. That's a big cut, so I decided not to upgrade and am perfectly happy.
My time to make a listing somewhere, collect offers, vet a one-off purchaser, and pay for shipping was probably more than $200, so it was actually a good deal. It's not a good deal if you operate at scale and can get the efficiency up, however. So if you wanted to start a business, you could probably eat their lunch. (Or fragment the market and put everyone out of business!)
I mostly buy old film cameras used from them. People selling them on eBay bought a custom-made 4x5 camera for $6000, don't want it anymore, but can't bear to see "their baby" go for less than $5999. People selling to B&H are less emotionally attached so the prices are better.
Probably. These shipping services don't really have any expertise to accurately judge the quality of many of the items they ship. They just move boxes around.
Some rando at FexEx Office doesn't really know how to determine that your DSLR has the advertised shutter count, nor do they know how to verify the SMART status of those hard drives you shipped, nor would they be able to validate the authenticity of your designer handbag.
There are specialized consignors popping up online that do have the ability to do these things, though.
The UPS or something can take a photo of the product or item they received. They are not verifying what's inside. They are just verifying the weight, a photo from few angles, available only in case of dispute.
Seller can also do that, but a third party doing it with no horse in the race can act like a notary. We are verifying what we saw. A camera "box" with X pounds of weight.
If seller wants them to verify the inside contents, he needs to Show them the inside contents. Then UPS will be confirming by photos that yes, an item with this serial number is there inside and we packed it. No guarantee of shutter count or working or not. Just what they see & record in a photo.
Its kind of slippery slope. What if its just a empty camera body? What is its a junk camera? What if buyer says these above falsely?
To save you a click, what @dang says in the first link is:
Please don't copy/paste comments on HN. It lowers the signal/noise ratio and makes for pain when we go to merge duplicate threads. If you want to refer to something you posted elsewhere, please use a link.
Better still, when you see a split discussion, email hn@ycombinator.com so we can merge them. We'll make sure your comment ends up in the winning thread.
> makes for pain when we go to merge duplicate threads
This was interesting. Would it only be an issue if the copied comment was a root comment of the article? Otherwise the copied comment would be under a different branch without possibility of collision with the copy under a different branch. If that the case?
Okay. Who is going to pay for this service? I'm not going to pay for it as a buyer. If I file a claim on eBay or Amazon, they'll almost always side with me.
The seller is going to pay as they are the most likely to lose the money if the sale goes south. The smarter ones would increase the price to account for it (if possible).
Yes, agreed, it could be just another cost like shipping material, shipping charges etc. Seller pays and recoups it from the profit margin, just like any other expenses.
Sellers already pay for insurance/signature/etc. when shipping high value items, this would be just an additional form of insurance that if a seller was going to use they'd roll the cost into the price of the item or shipping fee.
Even a low tech photo record weeds out a lot of fraud. Oh you aren't returning a thing that resembles the photo that was shipped to you? This won't eliminate fraud, but it will move the bar in a non trivial way. Combine this with a photo ID check at the store for the person doing the shipping and your halfway there.
Maybe for return fraud that’s an issue. But for buyers, the issue is usually more subtle problems with quality. (DOA, poor quality, counterfeit)
The question is, can a platform protect sellers in this way and still afford to compete with other services? Most buyers like buying from Amazon/eBay where they always get their money back. It’ll be a tough sell to get them to use a platform with higher barriers to making a return and higher overhead costs.
I think that you need to address the concerns that buyers have in order to be successful in attracting buyers.
the seller is selling a used item and the buyer is searching for a deal.
if lets say ebay offers this protection for sellers and other don't.and lets say all sellers jump to ebay.
all other platforms would lack good deals on used cameras so the buyer if he wants a deal would have to go to ebay and follow the process.
That's not how the dynamics of online selling works, unfortunately. Sellers have to go to where the buyers are, not the other way around. If you list your item on a site with no traffic and more overhead costs, then you're not going to be selling much.
You know, I'm surprised that those mailbox stores don't offer exactly this sort of service. Buyer and seller give a deposit to a postal store, the seller mails product to the store, the buyer inspects the product at the store and decides whether to keep it, and, if so, pays the balance to the store and walks out with the product, and presumably there could be a process for undoing it by returning the product to that same store later if a serious problem has emerged. I guess it's a lot of overhead for buying a video game or something, but it would make sense for $500+ transactions.
Those stores already have notaries, help with shipping, provide mailboxes, and the like. It'd fit pretty well into their wheelhouse.
Ive just started putting a mental business plan together on this. A few obstacles I see:
1) in the high end, is a UPS store or equivalent going to have a staff member on hand with enough expertise to vouch for a product?
2) condition is sometimes a bit subjective. One persons "Mint" is another persons "Very Good". When you have quality disputes, what are going to do? cancel the transaction? that is an expensive and painful process for all involved.
I think if you shoot for the least common denominator and can do the following there is some value to be added:
a) is it not a brick (unless he is selling an actual brick :) )
b) is it the brand and model that the listing advertises
c) if it is easy to do can you verify it is in working order when the item is packed and sent away.
I still see some wiggle room for problems, but I do think that being able to prove you shipped the item is important. Furthermore, if the seller sold an expensive item, didnt he insure it? If the item "didnt arrive" then we have a different problem. The seller keeps his money, and the buyer works with the insurer(who has a vested interest in not paying so will likely investigate a bit) to get made whole again.
I would guess that in 99.9% of purchases even over $500, both sides of the transaction are happy. Requiring the buyer to go to the store adds a significant transaction cost to the buyer, and is likely unnecessary.
You just described exactly what Stockx does with everything sold on their site. I think it’s good for everyone, because of the chance of getting fake items.
I sell quite a bit of vintage music gear on Reverb. I initially had some struggles with customers, but they seem to have mostly kept riff raff out. I think the fact that its still slightly a niche site keeps the volume down low enough to keep humans involved. As they were recently purchased by ETSY, Im wondering if this sort of service will start to drop off. Fingers crossed, Im selling a vintage Oberheim right now that I would be sick if a similar circumstance happened...
I stopped using ebay for the reason that most of the sellers just werent trustworthy enough. Amazon keeps trying to blur the line between marketplace and the company, which IMO is a bad move. I think they should run it in a similar manner than reverb, charge higher fees to pay for it(within reason) and actually do something to scammers on both sides of the transaction...
I worked for Audiogon a long time ago and I always wanted them to start a shipping escrow service for this reason. If you do it for a niche you have access to expertise.
This is exactly how it works in Bulgaria, most second hand marketplaces use a courier who offers the following process:
You describe what you are shipping, how much you want for it and who covers the shipping costs.
The buyer will go to the courier office and inspect the item, if they agree to buy it, they sign off on it, pay the price + shipping (if they are the one who's supposed to pay for shipping) and the seller can get their cash from an office near them the next day.
Important bit is, the buyer inspects the item and signs on it, if they buy it, if they refuse, they cannot keep the item.
At a Purolator (Canadian retailer) mailing centre near me, they have this system that weighs the box but also measures the dimensions. The whole rig is ceiling mounted (while the scale is on a counter). I suspect like this could also incorporate a camera that takes a photo of the inside contents.
Sort of, except the agent wouldn't be handling (receive and/or disburse) money. They just certify and record a part of the transaction (i.e. shipment).
Fedex weighs packages at multiple stages and this is accessible for the shipper. I suspect USPS and UPS weigh packages at least once and this could be requested if there is a dispute. These don't do a lot to prevent fraud, and it would be difficult to provide authentication without specialized training. There are services that provide authentication with more expertise. StockX does it for new sneakers. The real real and a few others do it for luxury goods. Even with authentication by experts it is not 100% certain that you are getting authentic goods and there will be some dispute process. In practice few buyers would use a platform that completely blocks returns.
You could sell your camera to a company like KEH, and they take on nearly all of the seller side risk when dealing with consumers.
The real problem here is that Amazon is not following their own policies, and refunded the buyer when the buyer did not provide proof of delivery for the returned item, not anything else about the system in general. The recourse for that is small claims(or arbitration, but small claims is probably better for you, and it is allowed as an exception to the required arbitration)
Sounds reasonable and it could be fairly automated too. You can already take amazon returns to UPS stores, Whole Foods or Kohls and they will box it for you. All they need is a camera system to video the boxing and then associate the shipping label/tracking number with that video.
The boxing video could be made available on the courier's site for any interested party to see (when enabled by the shipper). Sure, it may not capture the quality of an item, but that's a fairly small detail that can be resolved with a return/partial refund and it would at least put an end to the rampant fraud that goes on.
I had envisioned a close up overhead rig where it would mostly be their forearms/hands that are recorded as the primary subject of the recording would be the box.
Maybe the delivery company would store the information about the verification in a database that only the sender could initially access (but also including an ID that the recipient could verify after the sender provided the appropriate URL). So shipping company staff other than the one who performed the verification wouldn't easily be able to learn about its results.
(Maybe this, in turn, would create some other bad incentive or opportunity for fraud.)
Another random idea: law enforcement agencies could conduct sting operations where they buy and sell valuable items online (with extremely thorough documentation of the shipments sent or received), and then criminally prosecute counterparties who commit outright frauds. E.g. maybe 0.05% of the people buying or selling expensive cameras would be police and prosecutors who would try hard to send you to prison if you tried one of these scams against them.
Would that service be indemnifying the seller from fraud? Or is your assumption that the platform would just make the right call?
Probably it's because the platforms don't want to make services to root out fraud because then they become more responsible for owning it. Outside services can't break in because the platforms aren't going to put trust in them. Those services would have to own the cost of fraud.
It's still the preferred shipping method of jewelers, last I checked. The government takes the security of the mail very seriously, and you can insure registered mail packages for up to $50k.
There is a certain risk associated with buying used items. Even a item exchanged for cash via Craigslist can have issues - say a lens issue that only shows up in certain lighting. Too bad, we can’t solve that.
However these platforms can solve anonymity - may be UPS can verify ID and address in addition to basic checks with item photo and weight. That is, make it equivalent to an in person exchange.
That's called the eskrow process. It's highly complicated, expensive and it requires the 3rd party is verifiable trustworthy because they effectively have all the power.
I had the same exact experience the last time I sold on ebay, in 2017. I sold an $800 item. One day before the claim window closed, the buyer filed a claim saying it had never arrived and claiming they emailed me several times and I never responded. I submitted proof of delivery from UPS and pointed out the simple fact that I had received no messages from the buyer through ebay messaging. Ebay gave them a full refund and refused to speak to me about it. When I called them and waited on hold for several hours, they literally just hung up on me. I closed my ebay and paypal accounts and I’ll never use them again.
I have a similar story. I sold a brand new iPhone to someone on eBay who claimed it was reported as stolen and was not able to be used. Paypal refunded the buyer, and allowed them to keep the phone. Paypal account went negative, their internal collections started calling every day right away even though it was in dispute.
Even after providing proof that the IMEI was not reported as stolen, and them waiting weeks for the buyer to provide any proof (they didn't), they still sided with the buyer. I called for weeks, and finally after about two months, somehow the person on the phone was able to just issue a refund. I've not sold anything on Ebay since.
On top of that, when I had an issue with buying something through paypal, they used that ^ instance as a negative against me while on the phone. "Well I see you sold a stolen iPhone in the past..." was not something I was expecting to hear.
EBay in 2017 was a giant shitshow (and probably still is, but I don't use it anymore). Both their security and support are complete trash, even if you happen to be lucky (like me) and they reply quickly.
I woke up one morning to get an email notification thanking me for purchasing a back bumper, a wing, and a few other parts for a 2012 Hyundai Genesis, which I obviously don't have and neither have I made that purchase. The fraudster even put their real delivery address and name less than 20 miles away from where I lived (which I reverse searched and confirmed that the name was associated with that address). I immediately notified eBay about this, they refunded me the purchase, and asked me to change my password. I did all that, removed the perp's address from the account, but eBay didn't have a legitimate 2FA solution, so I was kinda out of luck here.
Lo and behold, the day after, I wake up to info on my account (name+address) changed again. They couldn't change the email, as I have 2FA on my email account, but they did everything they could aside from that with my eBay account. This repeated at least one more time afterwards. By the end of this saga, I just gave up and closed my eBay account after getting my refund.
I just did some googling, and it seems like eBay STILL doesn't support any form of 2FA aside from SMS-based one (which is exactly how, I suspect, they got into my account in the first place, as I didn't get my email compromised). What a shame, but oh well.
This is really bad advice, but remember that two can play at this game. You have this idiot's real name and address, as well as the make and model of the car they drive. Food for thought.
The story is a bit more complicated (but not by much), however, there is absolutely nothing I can do here. What am I gonna do, show up to some address in South Atlanta demanding whoever lives there to stop using my eBay account without authorization? And that's with the strong assumption that the person whose name and address was used is the same person who actually accessed my account (for all I know, the person living at that address could be totally unaware). EBay has all the info on the perp, but they decided to do nothing, and I am not going to start a civil lawsuit because of $1.2k that got refunded to me pretty much instantly.
Just for the sake of satisfying my own curiosity, I looked further (back when it all happened) into the person who hacked into my account and found some interesting stuff. The perp took some measures to cover their steps, but it was done very poorly:
1. The name and address used for the purchase belonged to a woman who lived at the address used for delivery in South Atlanta (verified that). I decided to check her social media, and saw that she held a job as a nurse or something like that, with nothing suspicious pointing at her actually being the perp. Her account looked pretty "professional" and normal.
2. Suspiciously enough, she didn't even have a Hyundai Genesis car, which is what the parts were ordered for. But then I noticed something interesting.
3. There was a guy appearing in a lot of her pics that looked like he was her bf. He didn't seem to have a job listed anywhere on any of his social media. He did, however, happened to own a 2012 Hyundai Genesis coupe. Also, most of his FB profile pics were either selfies or of his car or of him brandishing guns (mostly in his bedroom, all while displaying poor trigger discipline), which is not really damning on its own, but in the context, it definitely doesn't play in his favor.
Which leads me to a reasonable hypothesis that the guy who got access to my account used the name and address of his gf to ship the car parts he fraudulently bought, so that she takes the fall in case the authorities decide to investigate.
Yup, that's as much as I confirmed myself, if you take a look at my other comment in the thread. It seems like the fraudster used the name and address of his gf as the shipping info.
Sim-cloning is a very popular technique for this, but it is far from being the only commonly used technique to get around SMS-based 2FA.
2FA through SMS isn't safe, and while it is better than no 2FA at all, it is just barely better than none. If you are curious to find more info, there is a lot of writing that has been done on this topic. I am very impartial to Brian's writing on security topics, and he has at least one post regarding SMS-based 2FA [0].
Stories like this are why I've never bought or sold anything on Ebay. They just seem like a genuinely shitty experience and I'd rather shell out extra cash to buy new or meet someone off craigslist as a bank.
I tried, once, to sell something on eBay. I specified clearly that I would only ship the item to the UK. Someone bought it with a shipping address in Portugal. I refused to ship it. eBay "rejected" my refusal. I sold it on Gumtree instead. eBay charged me success fees for the item, since it had "sold". eBay refused to communicate with me about refunding these success fees, so I filed a chargeback with my credit card company. eBay closed my account because of the chargeback.
I once traded an iPhone for a what I thought was a Galaxy S4 on Craigslist, but it turned out to instead be a very convincing (and functional) knock off. The guy even talked me into tossing an additional $20 his way when we met, which I think is part of what sold me.
I've even got friends who are scared of that - apparently it's a real thing that when you show up to sell something (camera, lens, phone) multiple people will be there to distract you, snatch it and run. Even in broad daylight in a crowded area.
I can see this. Offer to meet them at a police station.
If it's a phone, meet them at your carrier's store and have a rep confirm that the phone will work and can be activated on their network (no IMEI block, correct frequencies, etc.).
Oh yeah, I actively assume such a setup is in place every time I go to make a Craigslist exchange. Thus far has never happened, but even if they tried it wouldn't succeed. Multiple family members in police services has helped me know the "tricks of the trade" from a young age, hahah ^_^
Similar thing happened to me with PayPal, buyer got to keep the item, and got a refund (by doing a chargeback on their CC) and I got billed the amount + 15% of fees and punishment.
I provided exhausting proof of delivery and that there was no contact or complaints from the buyer, but they didn't care. They said, since it's a chargeback, they HAVE to give them their money back. The buyer was a client of Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
Ironically, when I tried doing a chargeback on a transaction as a buyer, I got denied after waiting for 30 days for a reply, and had to pay a fee for an "untruthful claim". The bank is Erste Bank in Serbia. In my opinion my claim was valid, as the seller did not reply to me at all.
Interestingly about chargeback, I've noticed the same. I tried to file a chargeback with my bank in France and got denied despite it being a valid claim and me providing all the documentation for it.
But, when I used my US credit card to file a chargeback it went through fine and there was no issue. I wonder if some countries are more lax with charge backs?
Yes, it seems to me that USA (and in my case Australia) have extremely pro-customer payment protection. Europe, especially outside of the EEA, is very pro-bank and anti-customer in the specific niche of card payments.
The explanation I get is that if a card payment was verified by the customer with 3D Secure, it is considered valid and cannot be challenged. Which is true, the customer did enter their personal password on the page, and then the code received by SMS that's valid for 30 seconds.
What the banks neglect to consider is a non-cooperating merchant that refuses to return money that was paid under a sales contract and specific conditions, i.e. "I am buying a light green colored desk lamp with frosted glass", and receiving a broken product, or "Item significantly not as described" -- counterfeit product, or a pink ceiling lamp with transparent glass. Banks in the USA almost always take the customer's side.
Interesting to note (because of the proximity and similarity between Canada and USA, vs. say Germany or Spain or Russia), Canadian banks, as far as I know (from friends there), do not take the customers' side if there is no doubt in the security of the payment process and the validity of the authorization, regardless of the claims by the customer.
My guess would be that under EU protection you can’t deny having willingly provided the money, and ask the bank to take it back just because you don’t feel it was worth it anymore.
The claim would go through the police or a formal fraud complaint, and you’d be basically pursuing the fraudster in small claims.
> The explanation I get is that if a card payment was verified by the customer with 3D Secure, it is considered valid and cannot be challenged.
Was this with a credit card or a debit card?
At least with my (European) bank the above is only true for debit cards, while credit card payments can also be chargebacked on contract disputes with the seller.
In Serbia it is the same, the protections fall under the card issuer (MasterCard/VISA). I then went ahead and read up on MasterCard's Zero Liability procedure, and asked the bank again. They again lied and pretended I misunderstood the document. So, yeah, protection is apparently the same for credit and debit cards, and it's basically none.
To submit a chargeback you physically have to go into the bank office, and write a statement, sign at least 5 papers, and wait 30 days for a REPLY. If they approve it, wait 15 days to get the money back, but they can extend it up to 45 days, for a total 75 days of agony and hell.
What is the worst thing to me is that MasterCard/VISA rules should be the same worldwide, and at least for MasterCard, the rules are the same on the Serbia-specific website (https://www.mastercard.rs/sr-rs.html), yet every bank lies it's way into non-compliants with hand-wavy statements about their own terms. Additionally, I pay for a MasterCard Gold which is 3x the price of the regular card, so I could evade this bullit, yet I'm in the same problem as everyone else.
US has really strong laws for consumers with credit cards. The consumer is presumed right and it is up to everyone else in the chain to return their money first thing. Then the other party has the burden of proof for arguing against the chargeback.
It was a credit card. The specific issue was that I bought a plane ticket on edreams and was supposed to get 100 euros discount which was shown on their webpage but I ended up paying the price without the discount and the email didn't show the discount either. Back then there was no 3d secure check, so I didn't get to confirm the amount until after it was debited.
Some merchants certainly are. And in GP's case, PayPal might be playing the role of merchant, since they technically took the payment. I wonder if they just offer refunds to avoid having to accept chargebacks as such.
Yes, PayPal is the merchant, and as the CSR in the Ireland call center explained to me, they HAVE to issue the refund, or they risk extreme fines (the representative also told me PayPal could "lose the license to accept payments", but I doubt that, given their size. Regular merchants would, but PayPal is too valuable, so it would just get extreme fines and higher processing fees).
I believe this to be a case of telephone (no pun...scratch that, pun definitely intended). That sounds plausible, so the CSR probably believes it and regurgitated it. But chargebacks do not signify immediate fines (or else a merchant would never take cards!). An inability to counter chargebacks with evidence of your compliance is what gets a fine. If you swindle your customers and they file chargebacks, you have a problem. On the other hand, if you have a (or had a) customer who tried to game the system, but you have proof of purchase, good faith attempts to resolve, and written rules that are clear, conspicuous, and reasonable, then you can fight them successfully. PayPal just doesn't care, and apparently neither does their merchant bank.
This is recurring theme with PayPal and some US citizens are perfectly aware that when it comes to dispute they'll get preferential treatment versus non-US based seller and money returned no matter what.
This mechanism is quite often used for frauds and unaware entrepreneurs can be robbed out of money - PayPal will refund money, close case without hesitation. I think that only solution would be to use court route but in some cases equipment cost may be lower than attorney and court related costs (in addition to seller not being used to procedures, not aware of what to do).
And that's your problem. If you deny a return within the return period, you're in violation of Amazon policy, and the A-Z team will rightly rule against you. The correct response is to accept the return, then deny a refund after it comes back to you because it wasn't sent back with the same accessories you sent it with.
> S-2.2 Cancellations, Returns, and Refunds. The Amazon Refund Policies for the applicable Amazon Site will apply to Your Products. Subject to Section F-6, for any of Your Products fulfilled using Fulfillment by Amazon, you will promptly accept, calculate, and process cancellations, returns, refunds, and adjustments in accordance with this Agreement and the Amazon Refund Policies for the applicable Amazon Site
I came here to say this also. You can’t reject the return, you need to accept it and then it’s on the buyer to return the item to you.
If it comes back with parts missing, you can do a partial refund. Buyer can still do an A-Z claim, but you’re in a much stronger position, especially if you have proof of how you sent it and how you received it.
Frankly, because the team that sets policy is different from the team that makes the buttons. The policy has lots of exceptions - e.g. some categories can't be returned, like groceries. To disable that button, they'd have to check for all the exceptions and constantly update it whenever a policy changed.
They did change to automatically approving returns a few years ago, but with an opt-out ability. My guess is either OP's product fell into an obscure exception to that rule, or OP opted out, or something similar.
It seems like there's room for a confirmation/warning on the button, though. ("If this is a returnable product, accepting the return is mandatory." "Disputes occur at a different stage of the process.")
I'm not an active seller anymore so I can't check how it currently works. I believe it did show whether the return is in or out of policy. I'm also not sure if there's actually a deny return button, or only an accept button and an option to close the return (which you could if you resolved the issue without returning, which sellers are encouraged to do).
> If you deny a return within the return period, you're in violation of Amazon policy, and the A-Z team will rightly rule against you.
Amazon makes the laws and acts as a court now? I don't understand why people respect "company policy" so much. The laws of the land take precedence. We are not corporate slaves.
Amazon knows that though, so its return policy isn't going to be in conflict with any statutory distance selling legislation. E.g. it might require a longer return period, but it can't shorten it.
Also, people respect 'company policy' when they want to do business with that company.
Wouldn't that be a good small claims court case? There's good documentation that the item has been shipped, and the seller is out of both the money and the camera.
Sure, but they're still the losers here. They lose a nonprofessional seller but also, there is a legal record of potentially unfair practices. Most companies don't want that kind of information out there.
As a lawyer, default judgment for sure, but no one is sending out bounty hunters for small claims court. In fact, the courts tend to not get involved at all. You, the plaintiff, would be given the means to prove the judgment has been entered, but then it's kind of up to you to have it enforced. Luckily, you can generally count on the assistance of a Sheriff's office, but often the approach is some sort of wage garnishment (with a number of restrictions), bank levy (also with a number of restrictions), or real estate liens.
Collecting on these sort of judgments can be difficult, time consuming, and frustrating.
Is $2900 even eligible for small claims? Seems like marginally yes, depending on the state. Looks like the photographer is based out of CA and their limit is $7500. FL is $5000. WA is $10,000. Go figure.
> Collecting on these sort of judgments can be difficult, time consuming, and frustrating.
Definitely, and it's quite possible at the end of the day the fraudster doesn't have significant assets to recover. Still, might be worth trying it for $2900 or more, depending on how you value your time.
Wouldn't a default judgement show up when they try to rent something or buy something on credit? I mean if nothing else, at least their life would be a little less comfortable.
In the EU, it's now acceptable to file small claims cases in your home country even if the other party is located in another EU country. Most of the work is done via letter and if it gets to a hearing, it will be based on the evidence submitted by both parties.
Most cases are clear cut so the ruling is straightforward. Doesn't mean you'll actually get compensated. However, you can apply to get it enforced by a sheriff I believe.
There's been at least some effort in Congress to reign in the overuse of binding arbitration [1]. It only covers employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes, so probably would not help in a dispute between an Amazon seller and Amazon. Still, it at least shows some in government realize forced arbitration agreements are getting out of hand.
That passed the House, but almost certainly will die in the Senate considering that in the House it only had 2 Republicans vote for it and 183 against it (14 not voting). Democrats were 223 for, 2 against, 9 not voting.
But wouldn't this become an issue between the seller and the buyer, if Amazon is "just adhering" to what is stipulated in the contract?
To me this sounds like Amazon is saying "this is too complicated for us, and we don't see how to deal with it, because we don't know who's telling the truth". Like "If you've got a problem and a case, go to the police; not against us, but against the buyer".
My understanding is they sued the customer, Amazon stepped in to defend them, and they got a judgement against Amazon. But Amazon suspended their account in the meantime.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how is it not illegal to essentially try to subvert the court system by punishing the customer/seller for using it. If I worked into he judiciary, I would be very irate at Amazon trying to establish their own law.
Why would he contact the buyer outside of Amazon? He would go to the police to point out his issue with the buyer, there's absolutely no need to contact him outside of Amazon.
I'd rather think that Amazon would be forthcoming in assisting any demands an investigation would make, like provide all the information regarding the seller and buyer on this issue to the police.
Sure, it would be nice if Amazon would withhold the money from the buyer until it is proven that the seller has obtained the item, but how does this get proven?
Yep. One time I tracked down a stolen iPhone on Craigslist. The police were impressed I had the serial number, the original box, the receipt, and the photo showed the email address the iPhone was locked to.
They gave the guy a call, he answered with "no hablo inglés" so they hung up and told me, "Sorry, nothing we can do."
A letter costs a couple hundred bucks at most. A state with a good attorney general might do it for free. The statistics are in your favor that you'd get your camera or your money just by sending a friendly letter on the right letterhead.
But even then, I'd take a day trip to Florida for $2905.99. Heck, this is a great time of the year to go, and I usually don't make any money when I go there.
I say "thief" because that's how it looks to me. But how can I or Amazon be confident given the evidence I've only just read about?
What would help is posting up front a list of evidence that would convince Amazon in case of a dispute. If Amazon does not provide this then perhaps a third party could figure it out and post it.
I think that would be a good FBI case. I am sure it is a minimum of 2 charges, probably more (conspiracy to commit fraud over the state line, wire fraud).
I have heard many stories online where customers bought new graphic cards/cpus/camera gear from 'Sold by Amazon.com' but instead receive used ones. Or receive different cheaper (older generation) products.
It does not seem to be a good place to buy or sell expensive items.
I've received two used products from Amazon (bought as "new") in just the last year. First was an espresso machine. It wasn't even cleaned - coffee grounds were everywhere. The second was a robot vacuum that had a full dust bin. After turning it on, I could see the previous owner's home layout in its memory. In both cases, the product still worked and it wasn't worth the hassle of returning. Whenever I buy something, I make sure to check for non-Amazon alternatives, even box stores.
Going off Amazon's just not worth it in my experience. Slow and/or expensive shipping (week/weeks vs 1-2 days), no/limited returns (4wheelparts for example deducts shipping costs from a return if you had free shipping, which is already factored into thw price so they're double dipping), no canceling often (4wheelparts again), worse search/interface, and no 5% back from my card. I only order outside Amazon as a last resort these days.
That can happen anywhere, through any medium (e.g. bricks in a box instead of a PS4 from Best Buy). It seems amply evident, despite the recurring horror stories on HN, that most customers are having a pretty decent time of using Amazon.
In any case, isn't the author's scenario pretty bizarre? I had no idea that Amazon served as a mechanism for selling one-off small scale used items. Further the author mentions that it would be cheaper buying and selling than renting...only this is precisely the risk you need to factor in buying and selling (which could have been a fake cheque, getting rolled during the exchange, etc).
I bought a lamp for a rear projection tv a couple years ago. It burned out after a month. Amazon let me return it, but charged a restocking fee. That would've been fine, but I haven't been able to review the product for over a year now.
Newegg has problems too. All my friends have RMA horror stories with them, mine is having to pay $50 and shipping because the plastic PCI-E retention clip broke when I was disassembling my new computer with DOA motherboard for an RMA.
Also, Newegg gave up on maintaining their reliable filtering tools for third party sellers.
Mine is returning a phone, and having them ask for my Gmail password three times. Maybe it's my fault I didn't disassociate something prior to factory reset, but the phone was fine. And new. They claimed they couldn't complete the return until they had full access. That alone tells me they are selling used phones as new. After I refused, they told me to just change it to something temporarily so they could log in. I demanded the phone back, and promptly donated it as is.
You had to disassociate your own google account before factory resetting. If you forgot, then yes, it requires the previous owner's gmail password to continue.
Did you sell it as used? If you opened the package and touched the product it can no longer be sold as new. I have called out sellers on this crap before and gotten my money back. When I order new I expect a factory sealed box. (Also illegal in the US https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/20.1 )
So assuming you sold this as used, that sucks I feel for you. However if your one of those scumbags who sells used things on Amazon as new I have no sympathy and I would happily report you for my money back. (I have encountered this maybe twice in all the electronics I buy on Amazon)
If you want to sell used things you have opened, flag them as such on Amazon or go to Ebay. I buy from both places and will always take a deal on a cheaper gently used item if its disclosed up front.
Edit: For clarity, FTA > "To this day, I have no idea what he claimed was “missing” from the package. I even included all the original plastic wrap!"
He opened a factory box and unwrapped the product. How else would he photograph all the parts with the kit?
>>Just say, "sorry this happened to you, that sucks" or say nothing.
Umm, I had you until that line...
That line of unquestioning sympathy may be polite, but it leads us to nowhere. Or more precisely, to insular groups of internally self-validating comments with no sanity check or objective truth.
Tone, hey, sure, maybe OP could've been a bit more reserved.
But I will defend vehemently against attempts to sanction people with questions and wanting to know details before committing their moral outrage one way or another.
The seller denied the return (against Amazon's policies). The buyer should return the item, but the seller slipped up and the buyer was entitled to open an A-Z Guarantee claim.
I don't know, that page seems a bit ambiguous to me:
> New: Just like it sounds. A brand-new, item. Original manufacturer's warranty, if any, still applies, with warranty details included in the listing comments. Original packaging is present for most New items but certain items like shoes may be re-boxed.
> Used - Like New or Open Box: An item in perfect working condition. Original protective wrapping may be missing, but the original packaging is intact and in good condition with minor damage possible. Instructions are included.
Reading those two descriptions, and considering a brand new, never used item, which has had the box opened and then the items re-packed into it as they originally were (in perfect condition, in their original wrap, unused, no fingerprints, etc.), I would definitely consider that "new", not "used - like new". As a buyer I would also have no problem receiving such an item.
If the box had any kind of shrink wrap, adhesive seal, or anything else that's now missing or broken, it is unambiguously "Used - Like New or Open Box". That's literally what "open box" means.
As I buyer, I would absolutely have a problem buying, say, a new MacBook on Amazon that was missing its original shrink-wrap.
It's simple: is there any detectable difference from how you bought it, or any packaging replaced? If so, then it's not new. Period.
When I bought my Canon camera new from an authorized dealer, it didn't come with a seal nor overwrap. I do agree with you, but not all products are sealed.
> which has had the box opened and then the items re-packed into it as they originally were (in perfect condition, in their original wrap, unused, no fingerprints, etc.)
Sounds like a good way to receive products that failed customer QA, and that the customer can't return themselves for some reason.
Is Amazon even supposed to be a reasonable place for small scale sellers to try to operate? The entire mechanism of credit cards and large scale markets is based on the idea that you reduce user friction in order to get more sales en aggregate. Can you imagine Best Buy caring "Visa let a fraudster keep the refrigerator they purchased from us and even refunded them $3000"? Something like that probably happens every week. If you care about every individual sale you need entirely different sales apparatus and pipeline than something like Amazon, for whom we have also heard stories recently here on HN of them shipping multiple items to someone and just telling the customer not to bother returning it as it will be more trouble for everyone than it is really worth it to them.
I told Amazon was going to post a video to social of the third bad delivery at my apartment. It was so comical because even Amazon had posted signs on our property telling the delivery drivers what not to do. Yet the drivers did exactly that right in front of the sign.
The first two email complaints went unresponded to. After threatening to put on tiktok, I got a phone call from the regional director in charge of the deliveries within two days.
I don't think that was necessarily due to your threat. I've noticed that often the first one or two or even three messages about an issue that I send to Amazon seem to be answered by bots (or people following a poor script) and they miss the point of my message completely, each time, no matter how clear and exact I am.* It's only after multiple messages that a real (free-thinking) human seems to actually read it and respond appropriately.
* I swear it seems like there's a simple algorithm that scans the message for trigger words and then chooses a response based solely on those trigger words. I've received responses to issues completely unrelated to my entire message, except for the fact that they're about something I briefly mentioned in an aside or something like that. It's horribly horribly frustrating, even when I know it's going to happen.
No, the person who called me specifically said they were freaking out trying to get ahold of me because the social threat had caused the email I sent to be bounced around internally. She called me to talk me down from doing it and make reassurances, even though I had forgotten about it by that point.
Because they only had my email address and building location, Amazon repeatedly called the property agency, who (stupidly) gave them my phone number and details.
Does emailing the CEO really work? If I contact regular Amazon support, I end up talking to a bot presumably since their employee time is so valuable. But I can just hit up Jeff like it's no big deal?
Honestly asking, there might be some special team to go through the jeff@amazon.com emails.
Yes it does. It goes to his executive team. Granted, I haven't used that email in almost 2 years. I hear response time is way longer nowadays.
>But I can just hit up Jeff like it's no big deal?
No, you'll get ignored if your issue is not substantial or if you haven't gone through every other possible method of resolution. This is the "supreme court" of Amazon support, akin to the Ombudsman's office.
Regular Amazon customer service is not a bot, it is staffed by a large number of people. They aren't necessarily great (or empowered to be great), but they are humans.
If you email the CEO, it goes to a team of people who handle those messages, not just to him personally. It's not guaranteed to work, but it sometimes does.
There’s an entire team at Amazon to deal with jeff@amazon mails. It’s not emailing the CEO, it’s another customer support channel that may or may not solve your problem.
It's too bad ... I remember setting that email account up for him (he was uid = 3), and for a long time, it really did actually remain as his own personal email.
It is unlikely that your email catches his(his team's) attention. However, if it does, rest assured that he will shake things up to fix the root cause of the issue and likely get the team to refund your money as well.
> If you’re going to sell on Amazon or elsewhere, take an actual video of you packing the camera. You need all the defense you can get against items mysteriously disappearing.
Isn't this evidence just as bad as the buyer's account that he didn't receive any accessories? One could just unpack the box right after filming.
> Isn't this evidence just as bad as the buyer's account that he didn't receive any accessories?
No, of course not. Buyer didn't provide any details about what was missing or what was received. This isn't a level he-said/she-said, it's one party being forthcoming and the other evasive. Both parties had equal opportunity to lie, but only one put in effort to appear honest. Amazon should at least hold their scammers to a higher standard.
I think this every time someone suggests filming part of the transaction. Nowhere does video of an action imply that it was not immediately undone right after filming.
But the same might be true if you filmed the entire transaction. The only way you’d have proof is if you hand deliver it the entire way and as you validate with the buyer that everything works at that point and the transaction is over. Even then, the third-party holding the funds in escrow has to be satisfied or you could have a buyer disagree and say that was a different transaction than the one it applied to, a different camera...
pack in fedex store, film handing it over to store employee and keep filming until they scan the box in. their tracking will show them receiving box. at that point it is in their custody and you are not getting it back so you cannot re-open it.
Similar thing happened to me with eBay and PayPal. I sold a Marantz CD player, well packaged, took plenty of pictures. Buyer claimed that the RCA connectors were "slightly bent" (he refused to send pictures of that - but it's a normal thing, there's some PCB flex) and that there was a scratch on a certain side that I hadn't photographed, using this to imply that I wanted to hide the scratch.
I offered him to return the item even at my expense, he refused. He threatened of negative feedback, made a claim with PayPal and got half the amount back pretty much instantly, and kept the item of course.
Since this I've decided that when I don't need something anymore I'm just better off donating it or simply trashing it. Dealing with dishonest buyers and everyone siding with them by default is just not worth the hassle.
Startup idea: create a high quality camera gear buying and selling experience for the web, with many protections and conveniences built in. Selling your gear on Craigslist and meeting with random strangers at McDonald's and Starbucks is pretty much the only real alternative right now and gets old pretty fast.
This was an issue for music gear too, but somehow reverb.com managed to address it and make it a pretty painless experience. Their customer service is excellent, and if one of the two parties are unsatisfied, they'll intervene and try to find a compromise. They send you boxes to ship your gear in, they set up shipping for you, they automatically track the shipment as it gets picked up etc. I've been hoping to find something similar for camera gear, but have had no luck so far.
The only downside is that the prosumer camera equipment world seems to be rapidly shrinking, so it might be not a great idea to step into this space right now. Whereas there doesn't seem to be a dearth of people buying guitars, drum kit pieces and effects pedals.
Keh (https://www.keh.com/) is sort of like this, except that they function more like a second-hand shop--you sell them your gear, and they hold inventory that other people can buy, meaning you never actually interact with the eventual buyer. Because of this though, I imagine they take a larger cut than Reverb does (and certainly more than eBay).
As a buyer I've had zero problems with Keh the couple of times I've used them.
I've gotten quotes through a few of these sites in the past, and I was getting at best 50-70% of the value I would have gotten by selling in person through CL. I imagine it's in part because you ship it over to them, they have to inspect the items etc.
I think those services can be useful for buyers, but sellers who want to get the most for their gear will avoid them. Like you said, something like Reverb could compete on taking a smaller cut.
Yeah its a good concept and I would love an easy, secure way to sell items however they are quoting $965 USD for my Nikon Z6 which is out-of box new and retails for $1,996.95 USD. That's pretty hard to swallow. For that I'll put in the time to sell it locally, meet and try in person, cash only.
I totally get the frustration and such, and not trying to protect Amazon, but: author's web site intercepting browser history to trigger "checkout this content before you leave" when back navigation is clicked is outright evil. Just don't do that, be kind to visitors.
Edit:
1. Dictionary: evil, adj.: morally bad, cruel, or very unpleasant
2. To get the prompt you need to stay around on the page for a while, scroll around, pretend to read it. Triggers at least in mobile chrome browser.
Sad story, though not uncommon. I heard many eBay horror stories involving buyers' scams.
Frankly, selling anything on Amazon is crazy. But if you do have to, vet your buyer. Look at their previous purchases and feedbacks. Avoid the quick deal that will blow in your face.
The bottom line is that eBay (and Amazon too) are more focused on the buyers. Buying on eBay is great, because you have 100% buyer protection. There's no seller protection at all.
I'd recommend sticking to either local selling apps (like Craigslist etc.) where you can verify the buyer (though stay safe and do it somewhere public), or through online communities that manage access and feedbacks (there are several on Reddit and Facebook).
There is no perfect system that protects buyers and sellers. Change the rules and buyers will be complaining. The reason it is skewed towards buyers is:
1) who in there right mind would buy something online where there is no protection (sellers aren't the same as they have to sell somewhere to make a living).
2) most buyers are honest who just want their item. Profiting from fraud as a buyer is a lot more work as they need to resell the item to gain currency, which is risky (both from exposing themselves to stolen item investigations as well as being a victim of fraud themselves as a seller).
3) imagine if sellers could just ship rocks to buyers instead of cameras without consequence. Every scammer and his dog would be in on the gig without 5 seconds. (1) becomes even more bleak.
The general view is sellers need to take fraud into their overall operating expense budget, just like department stored do with shoplifting.
Well it becomes very difficult. Allowing sellers to cancel purchases from buyers without a strong and long history of positive feedback is a start - I believe eBay technically allows this.
But naturally sellers are then cutting down their potential buyer pool - it's a dilemma they need to deal with.
Of course one easy way to do this is cut out the entire online buyer pool altogether and sell your camera at a pawn shop - near-zero chance of fraud there.
Why don't sellers just do this? Because they want more money than the pawn shop is willing to offer, so they take the risk of selling online.
It's always important to remember what we are actually buying and selling a lot of the time is risk - the value of the item is often just a fraction of the overall purchase amount.
Don't sell single items online that you can't take a loss on is the basic answer. For the OP I wonder if there is a tax deduction that they can take.. maybe you have to be a company though.
My favorite Amazon "scam" examples are products ordered from Amazon that drop ship from Walmart. I call it a scam but some people would say it's a service...
A seller can absorb fraud when they’re doing hundreds or thousands of transactions. If each person is doing one transaction the people hit will have life altering consequences for some items.
I sell on eBay, but I cancel purchases from buyers with dodgy reputations. If someone has been an eBay buyer since 2006 wih 240 positive buyer feedback and 0 negative; they're probably not going to defraud me.
When I tried to sell something on eBay I had plenty of scam messages from old, reputable-looking accounts. The accounts were presumably compromised.
Worse, eBay sent warning messages claiming that the accounts were suspected of being compromised, so the scum company knows it and still doesn’t block the accounts.
> 1) who in there right mind would buy something online where there is no protection (sellers aren't the same as they have to sell somewhere to make a living).
Buyers also generally have to buy somewhere, especially for necessities. The difference is that finding a place to buy is easier than finding a place to sell.
> 2) most buyers are honest who just want their item. Profiting from fraud as a buyer is a lot more work as they need to resell the item to gain currency, which is risky (both from exposing themselves to stolen item investigations as well as being a victim of fraud themselves as a seller).
You don't have to just resell to profit. Just buy stuff you want anyways then complain.
> 3) imagine if sellers could just ship rocks to buyers instead of cameras without consequence. Every scammer and his dog would be in on the gig without 5 seconds. (1) becomes even more bleak.
The current system works because there are many buyers and few sellers. Most people are honest. And everyone buys things. But most people don't sell things. Skewing in favor of the buyer makes it so the few sellers aren't overrun by fraudsters. If even 10% of the dishonest people in the world were actively selling stuff on Amazon, it would probably be a huge problem.
> Buyers also generally have to buy somewhere, especially for necessities.
Much of what gets sold online is discretionary purchases, not necessities. Like cameras. And necessities are cheap and readily available down the road - why wait for toothpaste to ship online when you can buy a tube on your way home from work?
> You don't have to just resell to profit. Just buy stuff you want anyways then complain.
Well you really do, if your goal is to acquire currency. Having a garage full of stolen items is a liability, not profit.
> The current system works because there are many buyers and few sellers.
It works because buyers are willing (and able) to spend money. It's the only ingredient necessary for a market. Demand will always create supply one way or another.
> Most people are honest.
There is little evidence of this outside of Japan. Drop $50 in a carpark and see how many people return it to the store.
> Skewing in favor of the buyer makes it so the few sellers aren't overrun by fraudsters.
I am not sure what this means. Skewing in favor of buyers creates conditions where there are buyers in the first place, allowing for the market to exist. I suspect the reason sellers aren't swamped by fraudsters is as I said in a different comment - profiting from fraud as a buyer is difficult, dangerous, and requires a lot of effort and work. Most buyers just want their items. ALL sellers want to make money, and a fair percentage are happy to ship sub-quality garbage for over-inflated prices (a kind of fraud in itself?).
Similar story on eBay. I shipped ≈10k worth of goods to a buyer. He tore a hole in the box and claimed half of the contents were missing, after signing for the package. Despite this eBay refunded his money and refused to listen to our story until we took it to Twitter and pinged some high level manager.
I'm getting ads that state if I buy the ad-purchaser's product on Amazon and leave a good review, they'll refund my money. Basically, they're ads that say "Free [Product]!" and when you click them, they ask you to purchase the product, leave a positive review and then they'll refund you.
I tried to look for a way to report the seller to Amazon, but from what I found, I need to have a seller account with Amazon to do so, which I don't. As a customer, I can't report the product without buying it first. Does anyone have a link or email I can use to reach out to someone at Amazon about this?
Some of these products have thousands of positive reviews[1]. I find it misleading, and to be a nuisance to consumers who rely on these reviews to guide their purchases. I don't know why Amazon makes it so difficult to report these fraud schemes.
Since I found it difficult to reach out to Amazon, I reported the seller to my state Attorney General's consumer protection division and to the FTC. Since then, I've gotten even more ads like this, and I don't have the time to report them all to agencies that may or may not follow up on my reports.
Yeah, this is the email that a lot of the Quora-esque answers have. The product I put in my OP is still up with the reviews, despite sending a message containing the link + evidence to that address. I was hoping for a way to reach out to a real human being, and it doesn't seem like that address is the way to do it.
Ultimately when you mail something there is no way to prove what you mailed. You can mail a brick and say it was a camera or you can mail a camera and the buyer can say it was a brick. There’s an opportunity here for companies with big real estate footprints like UPS store or Office Depot to offer verified shipping and/or receiving, where you hand them the items and they pack them up and ship them with a certification of what’s inside.
Good but not scam-proof, there can be a brick in a camera case in a box. The verified shipping says camera in a box. I don't really mean brick here but the item could be a defective item, a different model or something the verification process could miss.
The UPS or something can take a photo of the product or item they received. They are not verifying what's inside. They are just verifying the weight, a photo from few angles, available only in case of dispute.
Seller can also do that, but a third party doing it with no horse in the race can act like a notary. We are verifying what we saw. A camera box with X pounds of weight.
If seller wants them to verify the inside contents, he needs to Show them the inside contents. Then UPS will be confirming by photos that yes, an item with this serial number is there inside and we packed it.
Its kind of slippery slope. What if its just a empty camera body? What is its a junk camera? What if buyer says these above falsely?
I got ripped off on eBay where the fraudster kept my gas RC car and got the refund. It was only $300, but I haven’t sold anything on the internet that I wouldn’t be uncomfortable giving away since.
No, especially after creating the marketplace. Before that Amazon would had a much stronger incentive to treat the customers and themselves in a more balanced way.
I can't imagine buying or selling most high-value items on Amazon: the buying side has already been covered in various places (https://seliger.com/2017/01/09/tools-continued-careful-buy-a...). I've sold cameras and lenses on Craigslist, which can have its own challenges, but never one as expensive as an A7R IV.
When I used to sell bikes/parts on CL, my rule was anything over 200$ I would only do in-person and locally (Besides, any full bikes in that price are probably too expensive to ship.)
And frankly, If it's something you have a hobby doing, you can wind up meeting some people who share your interests. When I sold a Mountain Bike to a guy we wound up meeting in front of a CVS and just shot the shit for a good half hour after the sale.
I spend tens of thousands of dollars on Amazon every year, buying everything from electronics to groceries to paper towels, and have never had any issues that were not resolved to my satisfaction.
Amazon is awful for sellers. Buyers can return items used, including underwear and single-use items as well. There are no question asked. A person could live their life buying toilet paper from Amazon, using it, and then literally returning it and Amazon would never stop this behavior. The same goes with clothing or anything else you can use within the return window provided by Amazon.
Paypal is not a good solution for secondary markets. I wish someone would start a payment company specifically focused on P2P where you can have escrows and third-party reviews for expensive items. Instead of sending your item directly to a buyer, you send it to a third-party who then signs off on it. I am sure people will gladly pay 5% fee to get that peace of mind.
Amazon FBA is a joke. I tried it for a year. Experienced a couple of instances like OP. Customer service at Amazon is an ineffective joke when it comes to these matters as well. Fees are too high etc. Believe the hype of YouTube "entrepreneurs" at your own peril.
Bottom line: the buyer can claim that a lot of things are missing, item is broken, scratched etc and since there's no definite proof (for example: you can video...but then remove items before shipping) Amazon has chosen to trust the buyers. As others pointed out an outside party might be needed to keep both sides honest, but otherwise Amazon has to trust one side...
Maybe that was an innocent person. Scammers are known to use other people's addresses, they know when the person is not at home and when the package arrives and just go loot it.
I'm not sure in what world fraud is equivalent to a permanent debilitating injury, but even if it it was, that doesn't make it right.
And even if it did, how do you know it's the right person? There are 5 people in my house (and I regularly ship things to other addresses). Do you just pick one and hope for the best?
If I was the seller it could work as simply as me bringing the item to a shipper who would take their own photos and weigh the items being packaged up as well as some check that the item is as being described to the recipient. In turn the shipper would get an extra fee.
For high value items (i.e. like OP's camera) it would certainly be in everyone's best interest and platforms like ebay, Facebook, Amazon could insist that all parties use this type of service or relinquish their ability to dispute.
Too over simplified??