[Google Pixel Accessories] leftbrain99:
I think the real question here isn't whether the Verizon charger is suitable and safe as tested by independent parties, but whether these de-branded “knockoff” chargers are substantially the same as what was actually tested. I will inherently question any ebay supplier that is able to profit by selling components at $8 which are supposedly the same as $40 retail components. Sure, we can all easily hypothesize retail mark-ups and so forth that would inflate Verizon's pricing, but why completely ignore the most obvious risk? That being that the test data being carefully collected on the branded product may not actually apply to these off-brand parts. When so much concern has been raised over compliance issues from actual branded usb-c components on the market, why add even more uncertainty through back channel sources and unbranded components? I can promise that just because something looks the same and seems to perform the same, that doesn’t make it the same. Applying test data for the Verizon charger to these knock-offs seems more than a little distorted, and I’m sure neither Benson nor Nathan K would contend that these ebay parts behave the same just by looks alone. Furthermore, implying that Benson and Nathan K have actually "approved" these ebay knock-offs as suitable in any way is also totally misleading and *at least* slightly irresponsible. Maybe they work, but no one has claimed to have really put these ebay parts through the ringer the same way they've tested the actual Verizon branded product.

When electronic components wind up on ebay like this (when the product has not reached the end of its marketable life cycle), most likely they are gray market product. I spent a good number of years in computer hardware R&D, and what is very common is this: parts are designed in a facility in the US, but manufactured in China or elsewhere by a third-party manufacturer. The product gets to the end of the assembly line and some or all of them are quickly tested before packaging. The product that doesn't pass testing (for reasons such as outputs not within pre-determined tolerances, excessive output noise, spikes, ripple, etc) gets pulled from the production line and tossed into a big bin. Usually, the product manufacturers require that the third-party manufacturer destroy this product so that it does not end up in the consumer supply. If it were to enter the normal chain of commerce it would put the product manufacturer at risk of additional DOA returns, warranty claims, penalties for non-compliance with regulatory bodies, and potentially event product recalls. But this product rarely gets destroyed, and product manufacturers know they can only do so much to control what happens to this marginally-performing product and to protect themselves from the risks. The easiest solution is to have just enough oversight in the manufacturing process as to ensure that the product manufacturer's logo is either not applied or removed from these parts so that it is at least somewhat removed from obvious liability if the product does in fact end up in the stream of commerce (which it usually does). Plausible deniability is always the key.

Of course, other things happen too - perhaps someone at the factory siphons product off of the assembly line either before or after testing and it ends up on ebay (the small electronics version of product “falling off the truck” during delivery). The seller might be covering the Verizon logo in order to avoid obvious trademark infringement claims - selling Verizon-licensed product without an actual license from Verizon is a slam-dunk willful infringement case, and that willful part incurs treble damages (3 times actual damages). Or perhaps the product here is just the same outer case as is used for the Verizon charger but assembled somewhere else with completely different internals.

Is it worth the risk? I don't know - again I'd say that most likely these are just from that marginally-performing product bin, meaning that where Verizon has set up a pricing structure that is based on (let’s just say) a 1% failure rate, the product in these bins is behaving in a way that is more in the realm of 10-20% failure rate. That's still pretty good odds of working fine, just not what Verizon finds financially viable at the retail price of $40 under terms of their warranty and contractual obligations to licensed retailers. The other consideration, though, is what is that failure – a charger that dies or a charger that melts and starts a fire or a charger that destroys the device plugged into it?

I admit that I'm speculating a lot about failure rates as well as how these Verizon chargers with logos masked ended up on ebay. Almost certainly they are (best case) just being sold in infringement of patent and/or trademark rights, at worst they are non-compliant and potentially unsafe. Spend about 3 minutes googling "fake ebay chargers" to see how those things have played out, notably for iPhone charging cubes and MacBook charging adapters. If any of that uncertainty is worth $8 to you, then have at it, but the old “too good to be true” saying has been around for so long for a good reason.