SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amazon.com can be held liable like other traditional retailers for injuries from defective products sold via its sprawling e-commerce marketplace, a California state appeals court ruled on Thursday. The decision overturned a San Diego Superior Court ruling that the world's biggest online retailer was shielded from liability because it acted as a service provider, which is not subject to California product liability law.
In addition to selling its own inventory, Amazon allows third-party vendors to list products for sale on its website. Such vendors may store their products in Amazon's warehouses or ship them directly to customers.
The appeals court found that Amazon played a pivotal role in every step of plaintiff Angela Bolger's purchase of a replacement laptop battery from Amazon third-party seller Lenoge Technology HK Ltd, which was operating under the fictitious name "E-Life." Bolger alleged that the battery burst into flames while she balanced the laptop on her thighs, resulting in severe burns to her arms, legs and feet.
"Whatever term we use to describe Amazon's role, be it 'retailer,' 'distributor,' or merely 'facilitator,' it was pivotal in bringing the product here to the consumer," the appeals court held.
...Both Pennsylvania's and Ohio's top courts are currently considering the issue, and federal appeals courts are weighing cases under California and Texas law.
Per aspera ad astra*... except the "aspera" part is taken by a third party, eh?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @04:30PM (7 children)
Shipping the package is no more significant to the transaction than hosting the website.
Any transaction has a million participants. Someone has the warehouse, someone collects the payment, someone manufacturers the product, someone calculates the tax, someone delivers it. But the party with ultimate responsibility is the one who made the decision to offer the product to the public, the one who earns the revenue from the sale, the one who sets the price, the one who accepts the legal responsibility in exchange for those rights. It's the only way that makes any kind of sense. There's even a legal term for this, with decades if not centuries of precedent : seller of record.
This court is saying "screw all that. Amazon is well known, it's their problem." Legal responsibility determined not by facts or law but by brand recognition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @04:41PM
That's either lawyer talk or opportunity seeking pond scum looking at the bigger pockets.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:21PM
Legal responsibility determined not by facts or law but by brand recognition.
Or by market domination, perfectly acceptable, Amazon can deal with it
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:29PM (1 child)
I'll go along with that, up to a point. But, if you look at criminal law, the guy who pulls the trigger in a murder has "ultimate responsibility", while his conspirators and accomplices share in that responsibility.
Whether in business for myself, working as an employee, or even just talking with my peers, I've always "advertised", or spoken for, products that I could vouch for. Never have I advocated for cheap, shoddy, fraudulent products. Having my name associated with some product that goes to shit after one or two uses would make me look like an idiot or a shill.
Amazon aiding and abetting in the sale of inferior products does what? Oh yeah, it makes them look like idiots, or shills, or maybe even accomplices to fraud.
Yeah, the manufacturer of shit products should bear ultimate responsibility, but his accomplices share some of that responsibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2020, @04:22PM
Having my name associated with some product that goes to shit after one or two uses would make me look like Tim Cook.
There, FTFY.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @05:30PM (2 children)
But they are NOT just "shipping the package" and "hosting the website."
There's a fundamental confusion I find among consumers about what "comes from Amazon" that's very different from stuff that comes from eBay or Craigslist. This is because Amazon itself sells a lot of stuff. And for the longest time when Amazon started allowing 3rd-party sellers, by default you were always brought to a listing for Amazon's version of the product. If you wanted a 3rd-party seller, you'd have to click on the "also available from these 3rd party sellers" (or however it was worded) link, where you could browse.
Nowadays, when you do a search on Amazon and bring up a product, you could bring up the version from Amazon (actually sold by them) or one that is "fulfilled by Amazon" (which means it's technically somebody else's product, but it's an Amazon warehouse, shipped by Amazon, and will generally arrive in an Amazon-branded box), or a listing that has nothing to do with Amazon whatsoever.
I still remember the first time I accidentally ordered something from "Amazon" which turned out to be from some random 3rd party. I was confused at the shipping container and even more confused when what arrived was obviously some sort of cheap knockoff rather than the actual product I ordered. This happened quite a few years ago, but I learned my lesson.
The problem is most people don't seem to understand this. I have family members who say they "order from Amazon" and get weird stuff, and I've checked it out, and it isn't from Amazon. Or, it arrives in an Amazon box, mixed in with actual Amazon merchandise, but it's not "from Amazon."
My family members are justifiably confused. Yes, they should read more closely, but claiming this is anything like eBay or Craigslist is just being disingenuous. Amazon is branding itself as the source for just about any product you could imagine. They want people to think they can get anything from Amazon, even if what you're actually doing is ordering a product technically "sold" by someone else but that's stored by Amazon, shipped by Amazon, and arrives in branded packaging from Amazon.
If I go to a physical store -- unless it's specifically a consignment shop or something -- I don't expect to have random goods from other sellers mixed in on the shelves so I have to carefully figure out what I'm "buying from Walmart" vs. what I'm "buying from somebody who just happens to have something sitting on the shelf next to a bunch of Walmart products and therefore Walmart bears no responsibility for this item."
Amazon is deliberately subverting the distinctions and creating confusion in order to offer a more comprehensive marketplace (which will make them more money and allow a greater monopolization). If they want this, they definitely need to take some sort of responsibility for the monster they've created. Either go back to a system that's more explicit in separating the listings of actual "Amazon goods" from options that show up that have no relationship to Amazon, or take some ownership for the items they're marketing through the same interface.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @07:44PM
Deliberately subverting the distinctions... by displaying the name of the actual seller, with a link to their merchant rating, right next to the "buy now" button?
Funny you would mention this, because Walmart actually works exactly like this. Inside my local Walmart there is a nail salon, a McDonalds, a coin exchange kiosk, a machine where you can rent carpet cleaners, an eye doctor, a MoneyGram place, a funny thing where you can exchange bottles of water, and depending on the season, Girl Scouts selling cookies. All of these are operated by other companies, and Walmart isn't responsible for them, other than possibly in the case of some problem with the physical building that Walmart does own. If the manicurist cuts your finger off, the carpet cleaner sets your house on fire, or the McDonalds gives you food poisoning (that probably being the most likely), that company is liable, not Walmart. And if your defense to this is "Well, of course consumers know that McDonalds isn't Walmart, they've heard of McDonalds" that is exactly the problem with this ruling!
And if you've ever been to Walmart's website... almost nothing on it is actually sold by Walmart.
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Monday August 17 2020, @01:46PM
Isn't this sort of the case already? If I buy a can of brand 'X' canned corn and it turns out to be tainted with ptomaine, is Walmart on the hook or the company that produced the canned corn? AFAIK Walmart is only liable for their 'Great Value' brands. They do have satisfaction guarantees on _some_ items like produce [walmart.com] and meat [walmart.com] that they themselves source and sell, but not on general merchandise obtained from other suppliers.