Court Holds Amazon Liable For Defective Products From Third-Party Sellers
On Thursday, an appeals court in California ruled that Amazon is liable for defective products sold by third-party merchants on its marketplace platform.
- Do you need a business bank account for your online business? Have a look at our review of the five best bank accounts for sellers, some of which are free with no minimum balance or deposits.
- AI can change your entire social media game today. Learn how you can save time writing engaging content faster. [sponsored]
- How to lower your taxable income and pay less in taxes. [sponsored]
- ‘My Community Made’ is a new marketplace to compete with Etsy and Amazon Handmade.
- EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Chris Prill, VP eBay Motors, discussing the new Guaranteed Fit program.
In a unanimous decision, the appeal court overturned an earlier ruling from a trial court that ruled in favor of Amazon’s motion for summary judgment.
In its decision, the appeal court wrote, “under established principles of strict liability, Amazon should be held liable if a product sold through its website turns out to be defective.”
Bolger v. Amazon
The case was filed by Amazon customer Angela Bolger who purchased a replacement laptop battery from Hong Kong-based company Lenoge Technology (E-Life on Amazon’s marketplace) which allegedly exploded and caused her severe burns.
She argued in her lawsuit that Amazon should be held liable for the product she purchased on the marketplace, yet the company argued it wasn’t liable as it did not distribute, manufacture, or sell the product.
However, the appeal’s court disagreed and wrote, “Amazon placed itself between Lenoge and Bolger in the chain of distribution of the product at issue here.”
“Amazon accepted possession of the product from Lenoge, stored it in an Amazon warehouse, attracted Bolger to the Amazon website, provided her with a product listing for Lenoge’s product, received her payment for the product, and shipped the product in Amazon packaging to her.”
“Amazon set the terms of its relationship with Lenoge, controlled the conditions of Lenoge’s offer for sale on Amazon, limited Lenoge’s access to Amazon’s customer information, forced Lenoge to communicate with customers through Amazon, and demanded indemnification as well as substantial fees on each purchase.“
“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 court also dismissed Amazon’s argument that it should be protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, that shields online content publishers.
The company can still appeal this ruling to the state’s Supreme Court.
Connect with us: Head over to our Facebook Group for Small Business Sellers and interact with other small business owners.
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn to stay up to date with relevant news and business insights for your online business.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Business Insights for Your Online Business Presented with a Dash of Humor
We do not share your information and you can unsubscribe anytime.
Richard is co-founder of eSeller365. He has over 17 years of experience on eBay which includes tens of thousands of sales to buyers in over 100 countries and even has experience with eBay’s VeRO program enforcing intellectual property rights for a former employer. And for about two years Richard sold products on Amazon using Amazon FBA in the US.
To “relax” from the daily business grind, for a few weekends a year, he also works for IMSA as a professional race official.