Oh sure, but are the goods on the shelves the same as what they provided assurance for? Just as someone may have swapped my Nikon lens for a counterfeit before I tried to sell it, someone may have swapped Nikon's or Apple's products on their way to retail, or after they left the factory, for lower-quality ones.

If they were found to contain lead or anything harmful, the stores could be liable for facilitating this or that crime - the courts ruled the police do not have a duty to protect, but apparently retailers do, and must act with the presumption of guilt on the most spurious of allegations.

Sure this will make commerce impossible, but we had no issue making commerce impossible for individuals, did we? We just treat them as fly-by-night Chinese importers, even when they're based in countries that very much put people in jail for counterfeiting and eagerly cooperate with various IP prosecutions. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Hey don't be mad at me, I'm not the one who makes these rules.

It appears that currently if mostly affects legitimate sellers and facilitates despicable differential pricing, but in absence of such rules the picture would likely have been different.

Also manufacturers face hefty criminal penalties for declaring a safe product and selling lead salts, what kind of penalty can be levied on a Chinese shyster?

Also-2, retailers can and are held liable for selling dangerous goods, see Schwartz v. Macrose Lumber.

> Hey don't be mad at me, I'm not the one who makes these rules.

Which rules? There is no law forcing Nikon to act this way. They do it purely for profit. Suggestions that they'd be somehow liable if they don't police their consumers are beyond tenuous.

There is no law preventing Nikon from doing that, and going after profits is a duty of Nikon's management to the shareholders.

To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.” - https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Granted Nikon is a Japanese company, but preserving a company's good name and consumer good will can also be seen as a duty to shareholders. In other words, they are not legally compelled or even legally incentivized to act this way. They are only, as you say, allowed to act this way, which is not any kind of excuse.