Not sure what the intent of this observation is - the same is just as true: 'if a single competitor is able to take down a product then there must be dozens or hundreds of profit motivated take downs'.
> The article is not naming an exact competitor, but dismissing the accusation as "it could be an entirely different random person" does not change the issue's substance: Amazon is broken.
Considering there are only so many no-buckle belt vendors, stating that it obviously a competitor casts aspersions on these other vendors without any evidence. But no, it indeed does not change the substantive critique of Amazon.
