Amazon settles lawsuit over alleged counterfeit cashmere products

The Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute sued Amazon and a US-based store, CS Accessories LLC, in November that sold scarves on the retail site after the organization tested several products labeled as 100% cashmere and Found that they contained no cashmere and were made of very cheap acrylic and other synthetic materials.

“CCMI and Amazon have resolved their dispute and look forward to cooperating to protect the interests of Kashmiri customers, manufacturers and sellers,” CCMI President Fabio Gargena said in a statement on Tuesday. The trial in the case was about to begin in Boston. An Amazon spokesperson sent the same statement on Thursday when asked for comment.

US District Court Judge William Young ordered Tuesday that CS Accessories must not advertise or sell products with false cashmere labels, according to court documents. CCMI is not prohibited from prosecuting its claims against Amazon in the future, Judge Young wrote in the order.

Mr Garzena declined to comment further on the details of the offer, including whether there was a cash settlement.

A CS Accessories representative declined to comment.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that after CCMI notified Amazon in 2019 about counterfeit cashmere products being sold on its site, the retailer repeatedly took effective action to fix the problem. failed in

An Amazon official admitted to CCMI selling counterfeit cashmere products in 2019, saying the company would remove them from its site unless the fiber content was properly labeled, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit states that CCMI found more instances of falsely labeled cashmere products in 2020 as well as falsely labeled “Made in Scotland”.

“Amazon has expanded and expanded the marketing and sales of alleged cashmere garments where they now have a much larger presence on Amazon’s websites,” the lawsuit states.

Scarves sold on Amazon were not available for purchase on Thursday morning, used as an example in a lawsuit for allegedly mislabeled information products.