Business
5 takeaways from CNBC’s investigation into Walmart Marketplace
Walmart‘s online marketplace has become a key part of its strategy to grow profit faster than sales and better compete against its longtime rival, Amazon.
As the largest U.S. retailer with more than 4,600 locations nationwide, growing sales online is also critical for its future.
But a CNBC investigation found Walmart’s digital boom came as it made it easier for third-party sellers to join and sell on its marketplace, a strategy that has come with a cost.
Some consumers have received counterfeit, potentially dangerous products after shopping on the marketplace, CNBC found. The investigation also uncovered dozens of third-party sellers who had stolen the credentials of another business to set up an account, including some who were offering fake health and beauty items.
In the early days of Walmart’s online marketplace, former employees and sellers said it had strict policies for vetting third-party sellers and the products they offer. But over time, Walmart loosened those controls in a bid to woo sellers away from Amazon and appear more friendly than its rival, according to sellers, e-commerce consultants, and current and former employees.
When asked for comment on CNBC’s reporting, Walmart said “trust and safety are non-negotiable for us.”
“Counterfeiters are bad actors who target retail marketplaces across the world, and we are aggressive in our efforts to prevent and combat their deceptive behavior,” Walmart said. “We enforce a zero-tolerance policy for prohibited or noncompliant products and continue to invest in new tools and technologies to help ensure only trusted, legitimate items reach our customers.”
CNBC’s investigation uncovered new details about Walmart’s strategy to grow its online marketplace and the risks it took to take market share from Amazon.
Here are five takeaways from the investigation.
Stolen identities and product tests
During CNBC’s investigation into Walmart’s marketplace, it found at least 43 third-party sellers who had used the identity of another business to set up their account. Some of these sellers were impersonating large, publicly traded companies such as Thermo Fisher Scientific and Rockwell Medical, while others were smaller, private businesses, such as a New York grocery chain and a Chicago pizzeria.
CNBC purchased and tested six items for its investigation, all of them highly rated, deeply discounted beauty products offered by sellers that were impersonating legitimate businesses. All of them were fake, according to brands and lab testing.
Walmart trailers sit in storage at a Walmart Distribution Center in Hurricane, Utah on May 30, 2024.
George Frey | AFP | Getty Images
Some of the companies that were being impersonated on Walmart.com told CNBC they had received mysterious packages at their homes or businesses that they later realized were customer returns.
One of them, Lifeworks-ACS, received at least 14 returns and mailed them to CNBC for authentication. All of them were found to be counterfeit.
Employee pressure
During the Covid pandemic, Walmart’s marketplace boomed and the company gradually made it easier for sellers to join and list items on the platform, former employees said.
One of those former employees, Tammie Jones, said when she first joined Walmart’s seller vetting team, the requirements to join the marketplace were strict. But she said over time, there was pressure from management to approve more sellers, even when she had concerns about the applicant’s credentials or documentation.
“It got to a point where they were just like, ‘You know what? Just go ahead and approve everybody,'” said Jones. “They wanted that business, so they were willing to take a chance on it.”
Onboarding and product vetting
The requirements to join Amazon’s and Walmart’s marketplaces are different. Amazon often makes sellers conduct a video interview with a company employee, while Walmart’s marketplace does not list a video interview as a requirement to join.
Over time, Walmart also made changes to the documentation it requires sellers to submit during the application process. In the past, applicants were required to provide their employer identification number and both a W-9 and EIN form, according to a video of Walmart’s application uploaded in February 2022.
As recently as late March, applicants still needed to provide their EIN, but they were no longer required to upload their W-9 and EIN form, according to a video of Walmart’s seller application posted to YouTube on March 31.
At the time, the only document U.S. sellers were required to upload was a copy of their driver’s license or passport, according to the video. Additional IRS documentation was listed as “optional,” the video shows.
There are also differences in the documentation Amazon and Walmart require from sellers about the products they want to list. On Amazon, some sellers are asked to provide invoices showing how they sourced their products, which includes proof they purchased between 10 and sometimes as many as 100 units. The Walmart sellers CNBC spoke to, who were interviewed before Walmart changed some aspects of its vetting process in July, said they were rarely, if ever, asked to provide details on how they sourced their goods. Those who were asked to submit documents said they often only needed to show an invoice for one unit and occasionally, answer a few questions about their supplier.
Providing an invoice that only shows one unit, compared with 10 or 100, makes it easier for people to resell stolen or counterfeit goods, experts said.
Walmart’s changes
About three weeks after CNBC shared its reporting with Walmart, the company changed some of its marketplace vetting policies for beauty and personal-care products in late July.
In an email Walmart sent to some sellers, the company announced new restrictions for the category and said it would start requiring certain sellers to participate in an “enhanced vetting program” for those kinds of items. The changes would address some of the issues raised in CNBC’s reporting.
As part of the new program, some sellers would have to provide documentation for each personal-care or beauty item in their assortment, such as an invoice that demonstrates the product was sourced directly from a brand owner or manufacturer.
Numerous beauty and personal-care listings were taken down from the platform after the change, some sellers said.
Legal landscape
The nature of online marketplaces makes it difficult to get rid of counterfeit goods entirely, partially because of a lack of regulation. While selling counterfeit goods is a crime, platforms face almost no liability for facilitating their sale, as long as they take down listings for fake goods after brands bring them to their attention.
The Shop Safe Act, a bipartisan federal bill, is designed to curb the sale of fakes online by incentivizing platforms to better vet sellers and the products they’re offering. When platforms comply with certain anti-counterfeiting measures, they could be shielded from liability if a seller offers a fake product.
Brands widely supported the legislation, but it has so far failed to pass at least three times, partially because Walmart and other online marketplaces like Amazon, Etsy and eBay have lobbied against aspects of it, two U.S. Senate aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private, told CNBC. The legislation is expected to be reintroduced in the current Congress, they said.
In the absence of more concrete policy changes, legal experts said the argument that certain platforms could be held responsible for the sale of harmful products like counterfeit body lotion or faulty fire alarms is gaining momentum, even if they were technically sold by a third party.
 "Digital Life Certificate From Comfort Of Home For Pensioners: How To Book Doorstep Request Through India Post; Check Direct Link")
Liv McMahon and
Chris Vallance,Technology reporters
Getty ImagesGrand Theft Auto (GTA) maker Rockstar Games has been accused by a trade union of sacking staff in the UK to stop them from unionising.
The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which represents people working in the gaming sector, said 31 workers were fired from Rockstar’s UK studios on 30 October.
The union led rallies outside the company’s offices in Edinburgh and London on Thursday to protest what it described as “the most blatant and ruthless act of union busting in the history of the games industry”.
The BBC has approached Rockstar’s parent company, Take-Two Interactive, for comment, which has reportedly claimed staff were sacked for sharing confidential information.
IWGB“Last week, we took action against a small number of individuals who were found to be distributing and discussing confidential information in a public forum, a violation of our company policies,” a Rockstar spokesperson told Bloomberg in a statement.
“This was in no way related to people’s right to join a union or engage in union activities.”
At large video game studios, information about game development is tightly controlled – with employees often signing agreements not to share confidential information.
Rockstar’s upcoming GTA 6 is expected to be one of the best-selling games of all time, with fans clamouring for any news ahead of its May 2026 release date – meaning security around any information will be heightened at the studio.
But union president Alex Marshall accused Rockstar of deflecting from the “real reason” for firing staff – which the IWGB believes is their union involvement.
“They are afraid of hard working staff privately discussing exercising their rights for a fairer workplace and a collective voice,” he said.
“Management are showing they don’t care about delays to GTA 6, and that they’re prioritising union busting by targeting the very people who make the game.”
According to the IWGB, the UK workers fired at the end of October were part of a group discussing forming a union at the company.
Mr Marshall said its only non-Rockstar employees were union organisers.
“We refute that confidential information was shared publicly,” IWGB said in a statement.
Dr Paolo Ruffino, senior lecturer in digital curation and computational creativity at Kings College London, said it was a “textbook” case of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) being used by gaming firms.
“They’re used at every level in gaming, creating a culture of secrecy that makes investigating working conditions nearly impossible,” he said.
“The real question is whether these dismissals were about leaked information or protected union activity – a distinction UK employment law requires but which NDA allegations make difficult to prove.”
‘Equalising the scales’
Speaking to the BBC at a picket outside the Rockstar North office in Edinburgh, organiser Fred Carter said he was standing alongside staff who had been sacked “without warning” and “without reason”.
“They’ve been fired, we believe, because they’re union members – which is a protected activity in the UK,” he said.
“We’re asking people to come out and support us, to demand their jobs back and demand accountability from Rockstar.”
A former employee speaking at the Edinburgh rally said there was a “power imbalance” at play in conversations with management.
“Not everyone is comfortable speaking up, and even when you do you can get shut down because you’re just one person,” they said.
Workers at BAE Systems in Lancashire have been cleared to proceed with planned industrial action after the High Court dismissed the company’s last-minute bid to block strikes.
The aerospace giant had sought an injunction against Unite the Union members at its Warton and Samlesbury sites, arguing their planned walkout was unlawful.
However, Mr Justice Soole refused to grant the injunction on Thursday, stating: “Having considered the evidence, the application is dismissed. I will give my reasons later.”
The ruling paves the way for strikes, which the union said were due to begin on Wednesday and continue until 25 November, following the rejection of a 2025 pay offer.
In written submissions, Bruce Carr KC, representing BAE, contended that Unite had invalidated the strike’s lawfulness by instructing members not to train managers in aircraft testing after giving notice to ballot on 24 September.
The barrister added: “It is the claimant’s case that the evidence clearly demonstrates that at that meeting and thereafter, Unite called on its members employed as quality professionals, to take industrial action in the form of refusing to undertake the training of managers employed by the claimant.”
Mr Carr said that in mid-September BAE wanted the training after “a number of absences” and while it was “considering business continuity plans in the event of possible industrial action”.
This training occurred between 22 September and 10 October, after which the quality professionals refused to continue following instructions from the union, Mr Carr said.
These workers breached their duty to BAE because they are “required to act in the best interests of the company to carry out such duties in respect of their appointment as they may reasonably be called upon to undertake”, the barrister added.
Oliver Segal KC, for Unite, said the training was a “request”, not an “instruction” and therefore workers who refused were not in breach of their contract.
He described managers being trained for the testing role as “unprecedented” and that union representatives had asked workers to get the “request” in writing while they seek legal advice.
In written submissions, he said: “The evidence in this case is that the defendant never even suggested, let alone ‘called’ on, its members who are quality professionals to refuse to comply with a management instruction to provide training to management executives.”
Mr Segal said BAE was “ludicrously interpreting” emails between union representatives discussing the training as instructions for union members not to comply.
The barrister also said there was no refusal to train the managers after 10 October and that one of the quality professionals gave a statement saying his team never stopped providing training.
He continued: “The reality is that this application is a last-minute, desperate attempt by the claimant to neuter the industrial action, which is both factually mis-premised and legally misconceived.”
Mr Carr said on Thursday that BAE is considering an appeal.
A BAE spokesperson said: “We note the ruling by the High Court. We believe we had good grounds for the legal challenge and will consider the court’s judgment.
“We respect the right of employees to engage in industrial action and remain committed to a partnership approach with all our trade union groups.”
The PA news agency understands that less than 70 employees out of 12,000 are involved in the strike action while production lines are continuing to operate.
Speaking after the decision, Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “This unsuccessful attempt by BAE to prevent a lawful strike will have severely damaged the goodwill it has with its workforce.
“BAE is a multibillion-pound company making record profits.
“It now needs to come back to the negotiating table with an acceptable offer for striking workers in its Air division, rather than wasting money on pointless legal threats.
“Otherwise, our members will be taking strike action throughout November in their fight for fair pay.”
Rachel Halliday of Thompsons Solicitors, which represented Unite, added: “This is a clear win for Unite and for workers everywhere.
“The High Court has confirmed that the union acted lawfully at every stage, and that BAE’s attempt to block strike action had no basis.
“Today’s decision will send a strong message to employers that the courts cannot be used to silence workers standing up for fair pay and respect.
“Unite acted responsibly throughout, adhering to all statutory requirements, and this important decision reinforces the union’s members’ right to strike.
“Thompsons is proud to have stood with Unite in defending this principle. Working people have the right to be heard – and to take lawful industrial action when negotiations fail.”
Workers at BAE Systems in Lancashire can continue to strike following the dismissal of a bid for a High Court injunction aimed at blocking industrial action.
The company asked a judge to order Unite the Union members at the Warton and Samlesbury sites to cease their planned action in a last-minute hearing on Tuesday.
Strikes were due to start on Wednesday and last until November 25, according to the union.
But Mr Justice Soole refused to grant the injunction on Thursday.
He said: “Having considered the evidence, the application is dismissed. I will give my reasons later.”
Bruce Carr KC, for BAE, said in written submissions for the hearing on Tuesday that Unite had given notice to ballot on September 24 after rejecting the 2025 pay offer.
He said that following this, union representatives told members not to train managers in aircraft testing and that this amounted to a call to industrial action, therefore invalidating the lawfulness of the upcoming strike.
The barrister added: “It is the claimant’s case that the evidence clearly demonstrates that at that meeting and thereafter, Unite called on its members employed as quality professionals, to take industrial action in the form of refusing to undertake the training of managers employed by the claimant.”
Mr Carr said that in mid-September BAE wanted the training after “a number of absences” and while it was “considering business continuity plans in the event of possible industrial action”.
This training occurred between September 22 and October 10, after which the quality professionals refused to continue following instructions from the union, Mr Carr said.
These workers breached their duty to BAE because they are “required to act in the best interests of the company to carry out such duties in respect of their appointment as they may reasonably be called upon to undertake”, the barrister added.
Oliver Segal KC, for Unite, said the training was a “request”, not an “instruction” and therefore workers who refused were not in breach of their contract.
He described managers being trained for the testing role as “unprecedented” and that union representatives had asked workers to get the “request” in writing while they seek legal advice.
In written submissions, he said: “The evidence in this case is that the defendant never even suggested, let alone ‘called’ on, its members who are quality professionals to refuse to comply with a management instruction to provide training to management executives.”
Mr Segal said BAE was “ludicrously interpreting” emails between union representatives discussing the training as instructions for union members not to comply.
The barrister also said there was no refusal to train the managers after October 10 and that one of the quality professionals gave a statement saying his team never stopped providing training.
He continued: “The reality is that this application is a last-minute, desperate attempt by the claimant to neuter the industrial action, which is both factually mis-premised and legally misconceived.”
Mr Carr said on Thursday that BAE is considering an appeal.
A BAE spokesperson said: “We note the ruling by the High Court. We believe we had good grounds for the legal challenge and will consider the court’s judgment.
“We respect the right of employees to engage in industrial action and remain committed to a partnership approach with all our trade union groups.”
The PA news agency understands that less than 70 employees out of 12,000 are involved in the strike action while production lines are continuing to operate.
Speaking after the decision, Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “This unsuccessful attempt by BAE to prevent a lawful strike will have severely damaged the goodwill it has with its workforce.
“BAE is a multibillion-pound company making record profits.
“It now needs to come back to the negotiating table with an acceptable offer for striking workers in its Air division, rather than wasting money on pointless legal threats.
“Otherwise, our members will be taking strike action throughout November in their fight for fair pay.”
Rachel Halliday of Thompsons Solicitors, which represented Unite, added: “This is a clear win for Unite and for workers everywhere.
“The High Court has confirmed that the union acted lawfully at every stage, and that BAE’s attempt to block strike action had no basis.
“Today’s decision will send a strong message to employers that the courts cannot be used to silence workers standing up for fair pay and respect.
“Unite acted responsibly throughout, adhering to all statutory requirements, and this important decision reinforces the union’s members’ right to strike.
“Thompsons is proud to have stood with Unite in defending this principle. Working people have the right to be heard – and to take lawful industrial action when negotiations fail.”
Researchers propose a new model for legible, modular software
Clarks Cloudsteppers concept stores opening in Asia, US; plans apparel, athleisure and men’s lines
Prince William waves at crowd as he comes out of public toilet in Rio de Janiro
-
Tech1 week agoUS Ralph Lauren partners with Microsoft for AI shopping experience
-
Tech1 week agoOpenAI says a million ChatGPT users talk about suicide
-
Tech1 week agoHow digital technologies can support a circular economy
-
Sports1 week agoBilly Bob Thornton dishes on Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’ acting prowess after ‘Landman’ cameo
-
Tech1 week agoAI chatbots are becoming everyday tools for mundane tasks, use data shows
-
Fashion1 week agoCalvin Klein launches Re-Calvin take-back programme across the US
-
Business1 week agoTransfer test: Children from Belfast low income families to be given free tuition
-
Business1 week agoLucid targets industry-first self-driving car technology with Nvidia