Sellers Say Poshmark Is “Competing Against Us” With Staff-Run Live Shows For Big Brand Partners
Sellers outraged as Poshmark competes directly against them in employee hosted Posh Show live shopping partnerships with big brands, expressing concerns about self-preferencing and algorithmic manipulation.
Like eBay, Etsy, and other online marketplaces before, Poshmark began as a neutral platform enabling peer to peer commerce between a community buyers and sellers - but with new leadership in charge, the company has started competing directly against third party sellers in recent Posh Shows run by Poshmark employees.
For example, one recent livestream shopping event hosted by the official @PoshShows account was billed as a "partnership" with Quince to sell off pallets of deadstock and returned goods and a few weeks ago, Poshmark hosted a similar "partner" show for Korean beauty products, also sold on the official Posh Shows account apparently by Poshmark employees.
One Reddit post about the Quince show has over 130 replies, with sellers expressing concerns about Poshmark having an unfair advantage and how this kind of self-preferencing may hurt smaller sellers on the platform.
How is everyone feeling about Poshmark having their own shows?
by u/dobetter-_- in poshmark
It’s definitely kinda sus that they’re selling on their own platform and can market their show to a severe advantage over everyone else.
I’m also thinking about the fact they don’t have to give 20% of their profits away. And they’re offering $1.99 shipping, which isn’t a benefit none of us are able to offer to our shoppers. So frustrating.
If posh gave every host 1.99 shipping then hosts would have much better success, especially newer or less established hosts. It’s hard starting out and then they want you to run giveaways and lose money on your shows. Working for nothing sucks but working to pay posh money for shipping out giveaways and making zero sales is defeating af.
I recall an email where posh suggested my giveaway away gift should be valued at $25 or more. At the time shipping was over $8 so that’s over $33 from my pocket not including time and resources and they out here now running their own shows!?!
And apparently this isn't Poshmark parent company Naver's first time stepping into ethical and legal grey areas when it comes to self-preferencing business practices - they've faced multiple lawsuits and fines in Korea for similar activity.
In October 2020 the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) found that Naver abused a dominant position by tweaking its shopping and video search algorithms to favor its own marketplace (Naver Smart Store) and video service, demoting rival platforms in results.
The KFTC characterized this as unfair self‑preferencing that distorted competition and imposed fines totaling roughly 26.7 billion KRW (~$18 Million US Dollars) alongside corrective orders.
The Seoul High Court initially upheld the KFTC’s abuse finding in the Naver Shopping case, agreeing that favoring Smart Store in comparison‑shopping results was exclusionary self‑preferencing, but in October 2025, the Supreme Court of Korea reversed the decision, ruling that the KFTC had not adequately shown a causal link between Naver’s algorithmic conduct and anticompetitive harm, and thus found no violation of competition law.
The Chosun Daily
While those fines and penalties were reversed, the KFTC Naver case provides insight into what Poshmark sellers in the US should document if they want to raise their concerns with the Federal Trade Commission, their state Attorney General's offices, and other regulatory and consumer protection agencies - most significantly the real world harm these anti-competitive practices may inflict on both buyers and sellers on the platform.
The self-preferencing clearly on display with these Posh Shows directly run by Poshmark in conjunction with the many recent changes that have been made to search, discovery and visibility on the platform create an alarming possibility for Naver to algorithmically manipulate results to their benefit at the expense of regular sellers and consumers.
Liz Morton
Here are just a few ways the fact pattern in Korean Naver case could be analogous to the current Poshmark situation:
Algorithmic ranking of own vs. rival offerings
- In Naver Shopping, the KFTC alleged Naver adjusted ranking signals (e.g., click‑through, conversion, transaction data) in ways that boosted its own Smart Store results over rival marketplaces in comparison‑shopping placements.
- Poshmark likewise controls ranking inputs for its For You Feed and Posh Shows discovery (e.g., sales velocity, ship time, engagement, show “success”) and could weight those to systematically elevate Posh‑run or favored partner shows above independent sellers’ inventory, even if both satisfy baseline quality.
Preferential default placements and modules
- Naver was accused of placing Smart Store modules and its own content in premium screen real estate (top boxes and visually emphasized slots) while pushing competing services lower in scroll or to generic results pages.
- Poshmark can similarly give Posh‑run or brand‑partner shows default presence in marquee carousels, top rows of the Posh Shows hub, or “featured” tiles on the home and For You surfaces, relegating ordinary seller shows to less visible sections or requiring extra clicks.
Closed criteria and opaque eligibility
- In Naver’s case, rivals argued they had no clear way to match Naver’s internal quality signals or understand the full criteria by which Smart Store gained favored treatment in ranking, despite nominally neutral language.
- Posh Shows eligibility and promotion rely on opaque, Posh‑controlled thresholds (sales history, policy compliance, engagement), and Poshmark does not provide auditable criteria for when a show gets top billing versus being buried, which makes any internal tilt toward Posh‑affiliated supply hard to detect externally.
Vertical integration plus marketplace control
- The core competition concern in Naver Shopping was vertical integration: Naver both operated a dominant search portal and ran its own shopping service, then allegedly changed the algorithm to advantage that vertically integrated arm.
- Naver now controls Poshmark as a live‑commerce marketplace; if Poshmark (a) acts as both neutral infrastructure for resellers and (b) co‑runs shows or inventory flows with select brands or house accounts, any algorithmic or UI favoritism toward those flows becomes the same vertical‑integration plus gatekeeper pattern.
Sellers who are concerned about Poshmark's increasing self-preferencing and anti-competitive behavior can file a report with the Federal Trade Commission here: https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/
Don't be thrown off by the FTC form and website mentioning fraud - you can select "something else" as the reason for your report and then give details about why you believe Poshmark/Naver's actions may constitute unfair, deceptive, self-preferencing and/or anti-competitive business practices.
Sellers can also contact their State Attorney General's offices and/or consumer protection divisions - if you don't know who to contact for your specific state, you can find that information:
Pro Tips For Reporting To FTC And AGs
You are protected: The FTC does not share identities of those who file reports and you can request confidentiality in reports to AG's offices as well - tell them "I am an active Poshmark seller” and request anonymity if you have concerns about retaliation.
Stay calm and factual: regulators notice transparency issues before they notice outrage. Provide as much detailed data as possible about the impact these changes will have on your specific business and/or buyers on the platform.
Support and encourage fellow sellers: Share examples of your reports either privately or publicly to help others navigate the process and feel more comfortable with advocating for themselves and others.
What do you think of Poshmark competing against sellers by running their own Posh Shows in partnership with big brands? Let us know in the comments below!
