In a complaint filed by ML Products Inc., the company accuses Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd., Ninestar Corp., Aster Graphics, Inc., BillionTree Technology USA, Inc., Mountain Peak, Inc., V4INK Inc., and Does 1-125 (currently other unknown resellers) of unfair competition on the Amazon.com online sales platform.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants “who are sellers of third party printer ink and toner cartridges on the Amazon.com online sales platform, have successfully deployed numerous false, deceptive, unfair, or otherwise unlawful tactics in order to inflate their retail sales at the expense of sales by Plaintiff ML Products Inc., a competing third-party ink and toner seller.”
ML Products claims further that “third-party ink and toner cartridges generate an estimated $350 million (€309 million) or more in annual sales on Amazon. Sellers, including ML products and Defendants, compete for those sales. Defendants, however, have dominated the market through their deceptive and unlawful actions as described herein, and ML Products Inc. has as a result been cheated out of millions of dollars in sales.”
The complaint contends that “Defendants’ tactics, individually and collectively, are designed to manipulate Amazon’s algorithm into artificially elevating their listings to higher priority positions in the organic search results for keywords relating to ink and toner.”
According to ML Products, the “Defendants use tactics like commissioning fake products reviews, compensating customers for product reviews or to change or remove negative product reviews, manipulating sales rank by accepting fake orders that Defendants themselves pay for, use “ghost” accounts and reuse older product listings.”
The complaint was filed on the 12th November in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Citing violations of the Lanham Act and the California Business & Professional Code.
ML Products Inc. demands a trial by jury and is seeking enhanced or treble damages, an order enjoining Defendants from engaging in the false and unlawful conduct described in this lawsuit; attorney fees and costs and interest on any amounts awarded.
Our take on this: It is for lawyers to argue and judges to judge, so this case will wind its way through the courts. But you do have to ask why the complaint wasn’t directed at Amazon in the first instance? If it was, what did, or didn’t Amazon do to resolve this? And if they did nothing, why isn’t Amazon also included in the complaint?
Tags: ML Products Inc., Ninestar, Aster, V4INK Inc., Amazon, Resellers, Legal
