Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review! Deep dive on Amazon's support of scams

Overview

The host (LTT-style “LS Rossman”) argues that Amazon is failing to prevent a specific type of marketplace fraud: fake or repurposed product pages and reviews that continue to mislead customers long after reports are made.

Background: Amazon review trust has declined

The video claims Amazon’s review system used to help shoppers identify quality and fraud, but reviews are now allegedly manipulated more frequently. The host describes multiple patterns he says are widespread:

• Sellers allegedly incentivizing positive reviews using gift cards, with little or no enforcement.
• Superficial enforcement, where Amazon responds to fake-review problems with “Trust us”-style notices rather than meaningful action.
• Product quality degradation over time (“death of brands” / private-label changes), which allegedly increases bait-and-switch outcomes.

The “today” case: a portable air conditioner listing with recycled reviews

Using archived snapshots (via archive.org) and screenshots provided by someone who emailed evidence, the host claims he identified a listing for a “portable air conditioning unit” that appears to be a scam because the reviews don’t match the product.

Key claimed indicators

• Rating/review-count volatility

  • One archive snapshot reportedly shows thousands of reviews.
  • A later snapshot reportedly shows far fewer, which the host characterizes as suspicious cleanup behavior.

• “Engineering impossibility” claim

  • The listing advertises 16,000 BTU at 850 watts.
  • The host argues this is physically/thermodynamically impossible for a typical U.S. (120V) plug-in unit.
  • He also claims some reviewers pointed this out as well.

• Reviews describe entirely different products

  • The host repeatedly claims that reviews on the air conditioner page are actually for other categories, such as:
    • a digital picture frame (photos/videos, app, frame features),
    • a desk (construction, installation, etc.),
    • a shower head (installation/plumbing references),
    • and even balloons or other unrelated items.
  • He interprets this as review recycling to make the wrong product seem legitimate.

• Timing of negative reviews

  • He claims the “bad” reviews appear clustered around specific dates, while earlier positive reviews appear older.
  • This, in his view, suggests manipulation rather than organic feedback.

What changed on the page (after reports)

The host claims that at a later point (with screenshots from August 2024):

• Amazon changed the overall displayed rating (e.g., down to around 3.1 stars), which he interprets as a cosmetic adjustment.
• Amazon allegedly did not fully remove fraudulent content. Even after “human review” (or automated review handling), suspicious elements allegedly remain:
  • Wrong-category review language is still present in parts of the page.
  • The listing continues to advertise 16,000 BTU, despite the host’s claim that the wattage makes that impossible.
  • He argues some fraud-related reviews were removed, but structural misinformation and factual review critiques were left behind.

Amazon’s enforcement is criticized as inadequate or inconsistent

The host insists that:

• Amazon should remove fraudulent listings and ban sellers, but often allows scams to persist.
• He believes Amazon’s stated enforcement approach (technology plus human investigators) is not effective, since the scam allegedly continued after reports and evidence were provided.

Broader critique: regulation and penalties are too small to deter fraud

The host argues:

• Enforcement penalties (including fines) function like the “cost of doing business,” so scammers can continue operating.
• Consumer protection enforcement is weak/insufficient, which allegedly encourages repeat abuse.

Additional digression: why Amazon may be hard to “break up”

He discusses a structural concern: Amazon is deeply embedded in infrastructure (including AWS). He suggests regulators may hesitate or be constrained in how effectively they can punish or restructure due to government/public reliance.

He also references (favorably) Scott Galloway’s arguments about breaking up big tech/Amazon to enable more targeted enforcement and reduce cross-subsidization.

Host’s actions and stance

• The host says he canceled his Amazon Prime account.
• He tries not to buy from Amazon personally.
• He encourages viewers not to rely on secondary sources and instead use primary evidence (screenshots/archives).

Presenters / contributors

• LS Rossman (host)
• Mentions:
  • Scott Galloway (referenced)
  • archive.org (source of archived pages)
  • Mr. Tagliani / Mr. Tagani and Miss Farago / others (personal anecdotes, described as not part of the main Amazon critique)