Another reason they do not allow it is because if something is popular Amazon will make their own private label version.

Completely irresponsible behavior.

It seems pretty likely that no one would even know that this exists in order to opt out of this until at least some purchases have been made. This isn't even "opting out" in the traditional (and already user-hostile) way of doing something by default that's orthogonal to what the user signed up for; it's a lot closer to the whole "shadow profile" thing Facebook does where the account exists without anyone signing up in the first place.

This seems like the same play.

Buy from the seller, sell to the user. Seems pretty reasonable. You can resell things you buy from shops legally, not just wholesalers.

And yes. I do see how it can be a slippery slope leading to dependence on (paid) Amazon ranking and being roped into their (exploitative) ecosystem.

I can also see how this could cut into franchise or exclusive territory deals, or how this can disrupt your marketing campaigns.

But in the end, is this really different from people selling your products, new or used, on eBay? And would the actions needed to stop this maybe be worse than the actual disease?

I can see both sides. Not sure which eay I lean.

Which is a little odd, and the value is questionable, but fundamentally seems...fine? You're a merchant, you're selling pencils on the internet, people are buying your pencils from you. And historically the way this might have been built would be something like a desktop application that users install, and which then goes and loads websites, displays them, fills in payment info, etc. Which of course is exactly what the web browser does already.

And all of the complaints about how it should be opt-in also feel odd. If you install WooCommerce and put a storefront up on the public internet, you've pretty obviously opted in to "selling your products on the internet". You don't need to tell Firefox that it's okay for people to use it to buy your stuff!

Of course, this isn't a desktop app, it's agentic AI run by Amazon, which certainly makes it feel different, but I'm not entirely sure how different it should make our analysis.

But also, the story raises a bunch of interesting questions and then doesn't answer any of them:

> Chua also received at least several orders for products that were either out of stock or no longer existed on her website.

How exactly did this happen? The story is that the orders are being placed through the normal storefront, right? So how exactly?

Or:

> Gorin sells wholesale through a password-protected section of her website, where retailers must submit resale or exemption certificates so orders are properly exempted from sales tax. She said she was still able to complete a “Buy for Me” purchase of a product pulled from her wholesale site despite never opting into the program — a scenario that could expose her business to tax liability if individual shoppers were able to place tax-exempt orders. Gorin also worries that surfacing wholesale pricing could undermine profit margins, allow competitors to undercut her prices or bypass minimum order requirements designed to keep wholesale sales viable.

That's just begging for an explanation. Is Amazon is somehow using stolen credentials to obtain price information? Or is Goren mistaken and the info isn't password protected at all? (And if not, why not?)

I'd also be interested in unpacking a bit more the legal and contractual implications of agreements like Mochi Kids has signed. The brand apparently doesn't allow its products on Amazon, and doesn't allow partners like Mochi Kids to sell on Amazon, but...Michi Kids isn't? Mechanically someone is buying the products at retail and effectively relisting them. Which...I dunno, feels legal? Is any agreement actually being violated here? Does the brand have a course of action? Does Mochi Kids have an actual legal obligation to opt out? Does Amazon have a legal obligation to let vendors opt out? Is Amazon legally buying anything from Mochi Kids, or is the customer the person using Amazon? Given the payment info being used is the customer's, I'm not sure Amazon has a commercial relationship with the brand or the vendor?

And so on. It feels like too much of the story is being carried by it being about Amazon and AI, which means the author felt fine just glossing over the details.

It is scumbags expanding on their nasty ways. Now watch the vampires at Amazon extend their undercut-and-absorb techniques on every single web shop, whether the operators like it or not.

When you really lose trust from your partners because officially announced things Amazon does, like adding your products to their shop system, then your partners have no trust in you at all.

When you don't want that Amazon sells your products, cancel the orders you get from them. Add a link to the real shop and a explaination why to the cancel mail.

It could all be so easy. And this are just the things everyone could do. Delivering doubled prices to AI crawlers would be a advanced thing.

I'm really sad this one couldn't be "Slop Direct"

Evil amazon dont list my products but pls still fulfill my orders.

If I was a seller, I'd probably find this a good thing --- Amazon is effectively giving me more customers for free.

This is a win for user control over how they interact with content on the Web.