Amazon sued over search results
It’s been said more than once that Amazon has become the de facto search engine for e-commerce in the U.S. If consumers are looking to buy anything online, they start with Amazon and go from there. That reality has played into a suit filed against the company by a military-style watchmaker that claims Amazon’s search results are confusing customers and leading them to purchase products other than its own.
In simple terms, Multi Time Machine (MTM) claims that consumers go to Amazon and use its name in a search. Instead of returning results that show MTM watches are not sold on the site, consumers see watches from other brands instead. The gist of suit is that these results lead consumers to purchase competitive products rather than notifying them that they must leave Amazon to find authentic MTM merchandise.
A search for MTM Watch in all departments on Amazon conducted by RetailWire turned up more than three pages of results of merchandise, mostly watches, made by other companies.
Source: amazon.com
In a 2-1 ruling on Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled MTM could continue pursuing legal action against Amazon. Judges voting in favor of MTM believe a jury could conclude, "Amazon has created a likelihood of confusion" with its search results.
The dissenting judge, Judge Barry Silverman, wrote, "No reasonably prudent consumer accustomed to shopping online would likely be confused as to the source of the products."
Discussion Questions
Do you think Amazon’s search results are misleading in the MTM case? Would there be a way for Amazon to alter its search results to clarify that MTM watches are not sold on the site while still keeping customers from going elsewhere?
Poll
BrainTrust
Dr. Stephen Needel
Managing Partner, Advanced Simulations
Ryan Mathews
Founder, CEO, Black Monk Consulting
While I don’t think the results are misleading, couldn’t they put a simple tagline at the top saying “Your item has not been found, would these products work for you?”
If — and I’ll defer to the RetailWire searchistas here — a consumer enters MTM and is taken to pages of watches not made by MTM then clearly some customers could be confused.
However, if the watches that appear clearly indicate the manufacturer, then there seems to be no attempt to pass off non-MTM merchandise as authentic.
I seem to remember an old principle of retailing … something about caveat emptor.
The second question is a little trickier.
There are presumably thousands upon thousands of products manufactured and not available on Amazon. Would anyone suggest that Amazon has a legal responsibility to the public to search out everything manufactured on earth and notify shoppers that Amazon doesn’t carry it all? How would they go about that in the first place?
If the issue started and stopped with MTM such notification would be simple, but since it doesn’t, one is hard pressed to see why Amazon should — or for that matter how they can —be held to a universal full disclosure standard.
And even in brick-and-mortar stores clerks have been known to say things like, “We don’t carry that item, BUT, we do have these items that are quite popular.”
The scene in “Miracle on 34th Street” comes to mind, where Kris Kringle sends a customer to Gimbels because she won’t find it at Macy’s. Assuming that there is no Santa Claus, that sort of fantasy doesn’t obligate Amazon to send customers to a competing website when it doesn’t carry something.
Where MTM might have an issue is the Amazon search result, which displays very cheap knockoffs from a brand called “Time Machine Goods.” But is any shopper in the market for MTM Special Ops watches retailing for $450 and up likely to buy into an under-$10 imitation?
This suit underscores Amazon’s significance as the number one destination for product research, and why brands need to be present and well-positioned.
E-commerce SEO is an area that’s evolving quickly. Organic vs. paid results, competition for generic search terms, different dynamics for mobile vs. desktop vs. voice search. This is the digital action alley.
Merriam-Webster has several potential definitions of mislead including one for an intransitive verb that states its meaning is “to lead astray: give a wrong impression.” That certainly would seem support MTM’s case.
However, if that is true, then perhaps they should also sue Google because when you search for MTM watches you get a number of sites that carry other brands of military watches including and ad with the headline “Watches military at Amazon.”
Have to support Ryan’s position that caveat emptor is something we all should be aware of when shopping, especially on the internet when you cannot interact with the product.
I believe in the Miracle on 34th Street approach, focusing exactly on helping the customer find what they want, not selling them something similar for the sake of selling.
Let’s make it simple: Amazon is a giant bait and switch operation.
Amazon is not a search engine, it is an e-commerce site. I have never heard or read a claim from the company that they are or were. They simply claim to be the go-to site for products of any kind. In this ravenous or enthusiastic approach, however you may see it, there is no mention of product by category and not necessarily make or model. This is an omission of information that is left for the consumer to discover while being offered alternative products and/or services. Brick-and-mortar stores and phone order processors are clobbered with laws designed to prohibit bait and switch selling methods as well as knock-offs or counterfeits. Federal, state and international lawmakers are deluged with public and corporate demands for tighter controls as well as a level playing field. This lawsuit was always a matter of time and money. The plaintiff in this case appears to be getting crushed by bigger cash supply and more legal influence. The competition and consumer protection interests will look for opportunity in this case and proceed progressively where there is any chance to win.
This suit will go nowhere, and unless MTM gets on board with Amazon this will continue to happen. MTM needs to do a better job of promoting THEIR website, and this should help quite a bit. Amazon is not going to apologize for trying to sell another product, which to me is how the internet works. It may not seem fair, but hey MTM, pay the commission and let Amazon help sell your product. It might actually enhance your bottom line, who knows?
I think that Ryan sums it up very well. Having just been involved in a more focused “confusion” litigation case I have to say that confusion is minimized when a consumer specifies a particular brand for their internet search. Shoppers know they are going to see several items (and ads) that may or may not be related to their specific search.
If a shopper enters the Amazon “store” and looks for a particular brand of watch, it should be immediately apparent that the brands that come up in the search may or may not be that brand.
On to the next level of search. In my case I knew that I wanted a particular Samsung tablet. What I didn’t know was that there was a “2014” identification necessary to get the exact model I wanted. So one incorrect purchase and return later I learned what I needed to know in order to get what I wanted. So one could argue (not with any strength) that Amazon is a source of information that helps people find what they are looking for, even when they don’t know exactly what they are looking for.
But let’s think of some of our Google searches. How many times does a person have to restate the object of their search to come up with relevant links?
It will be very interesting to see how this case turns out. If it goes in the favor of MTM watches, how will it be possible to enforce such a policy?
If I do a generic search I find MTM branded watches along with other military watches. If first I choose to go to Amazon and don’t come up with the MTM brand, but other military watches, I assume Amazon doesn’t carry the brand. They know I am interested in a military watch, so why not show me what they have? There is no need to explain that they don’t carry them.
MTM should take the knowledge that people are searching for their products on Amazon and start SELLING their products on Amazon. Seems pretty simple.
The responses here are as interesting and divided as the survey results. I agree with many of them, such as buyer beware and adding a tag line showing the product is not carried by that certain manufacturer. I also agree it is foolhardy to think Amazon will send a potential customer to another site. “Ho Ho Ho,” says Kris Kringle. The other question is: Why would MTM not want the additional sales revenue Amazon provides for giving up a small commission? This could be a win/win for all if MTM adds their name to the Amazon website. Simple enough? Yes, but I am not the hard nosed leaders of MTM.
I don’t see why Amazon is being held to a higher standard than other retailers. I did a quick test and searched for “MTM watch” on Overstock, Wayfair, Amazon and Walmart. The former two displayed the helpful message that they did not carry the product and offered to assist me in finding other/related products, while both Amazon and Walmart displayed a set of products with no message that the product was not available on the site. Amazon was marginally more helpful than Walmart in that it listed a series of related searches.
As George said, this is ultimately an indication of Amazon’s ascension as the de facto search engine for products. However, to the extent that they do become that in some consumers’ eyes, it is as a result of their retailing prowess, and I reiterate that I do not see why that is being held against them in a court of law.