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, 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.