I agree, ultimately, the responsibility lies with Amazon for this gaffe. Somebody was obviously asleep at the wheel.
However, I can’t dismiss in my mind that some more descriptive native labeling, or any kind of labeling for that matter, could have reduced the possibility of such an occurrence.
That omission would seem to be a pitfall for a company’s own internal inventory management, never mind the logistics handlers in a seller’s warehouse that must process thousands upon thousands of items, and can’t be expected to recognize the differences between similar items in almost completely identical boxes. A lesson learned, perhaps.
Still, commingling of user reviews (and stock) of disparate items in a single listing is an issue Amazon has long had, and done nothing to address. It’s confusing (the single line description above a review can easily go unnoticed), can be misleading, taints the quality of the data, and compromises the effectiveness of the rating system.
But, with the company having amassed a high level of market power, and making large profits, it feels little pressure except to continue to make new conquests.
Customer service remains above average, but it now seems like a company that feels that it can flex its muscles without repercussions, whether bullying city governments, playing them against each other to extract maximum concessions, or being less customer friendly overall.