>And the latter is really what you want, because otherwise Amazon has to play whack-a-mole as the perpetrators just create new accounts
How can they just create a new account to sell supplements without thorough testing, vetting, control processes, etc. by Amazon, the business actually selling the stuff? If Amazon doesn't have such controls in place to stop people from "just creating new accounts" then hold Amazon liable.
> How can they just create a new account to sell supplements without thorough testing, vetting, control processes, etc. by Amazon, the business actually selling the stuff?
Because they, not Amazon, are the business actually selling the stuff. Amazon is a payment processor and a warehouse provider.
You go after the person who knew they were breaking the law, not their landlord or their bank or the dealership where they bought their car by accusing them of not thoroughly investigating their customers. Criminal investigations are the role of law enforcement, not private businesses.
> Because they, not Amazon, are the business actually selling the stuff. Amazon is a payment processor and a warehouse provider.
That is legally questionable. When Amazon was losing on that issue in Pennsylvania higher courts, they settled to avoid having an on the record decision that Amazon was liable.[1]
Policy arguments don't depend on what the law is in a particular jurisdiction. Laws are often malleable enough that if you can convince the judge of what should happen, they can reach the corresponding outcome. When that isn't the case, the legislature can change the law. In either event the first step is to figure out how things ought to work and making them work that way comes after.
How can they just create a new account to sell supplements without thorough testing, vetting, control processes, etc. by Amazon, the business actually selling the stuff? If Amazon doesn't have such controls in place to stop people from "just creating new accounts" then hold Amazon liable.