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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @07:28PM (1 child)
Yep, Amazon provided a bunch of services. They provided marketing, shipping, payment processing, and communication services, any or all of which could have been provided by any number of companies, and none of which make Amazon liable for the product. Is FedEx liable for a faulty product just because they delivered it? Is Paypal liable for a faulty product just because they took a payment for it? Is CBS liable for a faulty product just because they ran a commercial for it?
The liability is with the seller of the product, not a service provider, and that doesn't change just because the service provider happens to provide multiple services. But the court wanted to screw Amazon, so they pretended Amazon was the seller, even though they aren't.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Sunday August 16 2020, @04:35AM
If Amazon is in the chain of custody though, there's a good argument that they're the seller.
Ebay, Craigslist, etc. never take possession of the product - they help coordinate the sale, and (in ebay's case, usually) act as a payment intermediary, but they never take possession of the product.
Amazon (often) does. The moment a product enters Amazon's warehouse, it becomes their possession, subject to their inventory system, and the original merchant no longer has any guarantee that the product they shipped is the product you received. Amazon does.