Amazon can be held liable for third-party seller products

[nickopedia]

In a blow to Amazon, a U.S. appeals court ruled that the mega-retailer can be held accountable for faulty third-party sales. The ruling arrived this week via the 3rd U.S. City Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

The case involves a woman, Ms. Oberdorf who bought a retractable leash on Amazon.com.

Oberdorf walked her dog with a retractable leash. Unexpectedly, the dog lunged. The D-ring on the collar broke and the leash recoiled and hit Oberdorf’s face and eyeglasses, leaving Oberdorf permanently blind in her left eye. Oberdorf bought the collar on Amazon.com. She sued Amazon.com, including claims for strict products liability and negligence.

The court found that Amazon was not a “seller” under Pennsylvania law and that Oberdorf’s claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) because she sought to hold Amazon liable for its role as the online publisher of third-party content. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. Amazon is a “seller” under section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts and thus subject to the Pennsylvania strict products liability law. Amazon’s involvement in transactions extends beyond a mere editorial function; it plays a large role in the actual sales process.

But, when this case was appealed, the new ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which reversed a lower court decision, appeared to be the first to buck that trend.

The case was: Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc, No. 18-1041 (3d Cir. 2019)

This basically means that Amazon will be held responsible for items sold by 3rd parties/vendors on their site.

This case has a chilling effect in the sense it will make online marketplaces far more strict with sellers in the future.

[rsot]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...business-model

[Sunspot144]

Only takes a couple stupid people to ruin everyone's fun. Bring your dog to obedience training school.

[nickopedia]

This case sets an ominous future for 3rd party sellers on not just Amazon.

This case is about more about who can be held liable for "defective" products. Not only the original seller of the merchandise, but the marketplace itself.

What is the legal definition of "defective" ?

Can this be applied for counterfeit merchandise, or products that are what they are claimed to be? Or, are they items that are can cause injury, or damage?

The main question we should be asking is:

How will this affect Amazon sellers going forward?

[agent006140]

not just AMZN third party sellers,but ebay sellers,Bonanza,Ioffer,Etsy,Rubylane,Ecrater sellers.
I see Ebay sellers selling cosmetic,vitamins,non prescription oilment,treatments for fungal nails?
Some may have a good expiration date but how long have they been sitting in warehouse,garage,attic,basement? exposed to heat,radiation?

[agent006140]

Ebay has more to worry than AMZN,as Ebay allows used items to be sold,sometimes the sellers dont even know what the items are meant for,they just find it and figure it could be sold for $$.
What is that thing we need to connect to cable TV,else we pay $5 extra?some kind of jack,?
Well,I bought some still sealed from an Ebay seller,some do not work and the seller said she has no idea what it is for?

[agent006140]

yesterday on CNBC,I saw some guy from some retail sales association saying they are taking ecommerce sites like AMZN to court for the damage done to small retailers,anyone has more information?
And Trump has said something about possible antitrust cases ,he said he cant say anymore>typical Trump !

[Sunspot144]

I can see it getting messy very quickly. Car manufacturers recall their vehicles all the time, lawsuits are a part of the business.

Really depends if Amazon wants to cut the head off the snake so to speak and begin requiring not sellers but manufacturers to conduct safety testing research and documentation for their products. It would require time and money on their part.

They could apply the new requirements to categories mostly mechanical in some way. Kitchen, hardware, sports, toys and others.

If Chinese exports are impacted by the new court ruling (less importers of untested product) pricing of products (because they have to be safety tested) could be higher than before. The Chinese could also provide phake testing docs to move their product. Since Amazon is held liable now do they have jurisdiction in China? They've got the money... Wow.

[nickopedia]

Originally Posted by Sunspot144

I can see it getting messy very quickly. Car manufacturers recall their vehicles all the time, lawsuits are a part of the business.

Really depends if Amazon wants to cut the head off the snake so to speak and begin requiring not sellers but manufacturers to conduct safety testing research and documentation for their products. It would require time and money on their part.

They could apply the new requirements to categories mostly mechanical in some way. Kitchen, hardware, sports, toys and others.

If Chinese exports are impacted by the new court ruling (less importers of untested product) pricing of products (because they have to be safety tested) could be higher than before. The Chinese could also provide phake testing docs to move their product. Since Amazon is held liable now do they have jurisdiction in China? They've got the money... Wow.

This is right.

I forsee situations where AZN will require a "Certificate of Product Testing" or some documentation from the manufacturer that states the item(s) are same, etc on various ASIN's.

As agent006140 mentioned above, this case has wider implications that will reach far beyond Amazon.

[SaiJin]

greaatt. AZ is already strict with a lot of things, let's hope they won't require a safety certificate when we sell a pencil

[agent006140]

I think what AMZN would do eventually is to serve established businesses ,those who buy direct from manufacturer or wholesaler/distributor ,have a store front address,registered and licensed,have bank account in the name of business,not person,good credit rating.
AMZN has the infrastructure both onland and cyber to serve legit businesses worldwide,I wish they will get rid of the private label craps ,which compete with their customers.
Serving individuals is a bad idea,may be just in some categories like books,cd,dvd.
But Ebay relies on small sellers who sell household items found in attic,basement,auction,garage ,it becomes liable if someone slapped some cream on her face which causes her to become ill.
Or a used toaster oven,coffee maker.micro wave which blow up in our face ?
I once bought a used printer as backup,it arrived with ink spilled on the bubble wrap,the box,the printer,also on my floor,hands and shirts,she did remove the ink cartridge but there are still alot of ink inside !!!
I returned it without testing,as it would just spill more ink on my desk,it cost her $35 x 2 to get it back ,then I see she relisted it !!!
Oh,how about food,some will bake a cake,fruit cake?
and encouraging sellers to offer free shipping,so seller would use the cheapest slowest form of shipping,koi fish died,plant wilted and food fermented and create gas which blow up in our face.

[walkingupwards]

This is really absurd. How is Amazon or eBay supposed to check every item listed on their website.

What if sellers lie about the item specifics, quality...etc? How could Amazon detect that?!

We've always seen eBay kneeing down to rights owners and kicking sellers off their platform just by taking the word of a "complainer". I think in the future even buyers or "Multiple buyers have complained" will be enough to kick someone out!



"Wearing the tinfoil hat":

This is all to get Jeff Bezos and his Washington Post to back off. Trump ordered a thorough study of Alibaba, eBay & Amazon for a reason and that reason is not consumer protection.

Jeff got caught in the crosshair of a dirty game and now he is dealing with the consequences.

[agent006140]

If the Made in China items are made for US company,that US company should make sure they are safe,not the Chinese vendor.
Like in the past,some of the toddler items,cant recall what they are,but they were made for a US company.

[agent006140]

Originally Posted by walkingupwards

This is really absurd. How is Amazon or eBay supposed to check every item listed on their website.

What if sellers lie about the item specifics, quality...etc? How could Amazon detect that?!

We've always seen eBay kneeing down to rights owners and kicking sellers off their platform just by taking the word of a "complainer". I think in the future even buyers or "Multiple buyers have complained" will be enough to kick someone out!



"Wearing the tinfoil hat":

This is all to get Jeff Bezos and his Washington Post to back off. Trump ordered a thorough study of Alibaba, eBay & Amazon for a reason and that reason is not consumer protection.

Jeff got caught in the crosshair of a dirty game and now he is dealing with the consequences.

What BOZOs has to ask himself is -in the beginning,you want more folks to come and play,let them sell and buy,the brick and mortar shops have not caught on with ecommerce and the individual found a way to make some good money by ordering from the same vendor these brick and mortar stores ordered from,and sell them for less.
But now he can easily kick those casual sellers out and make AMZN a place for professionals,those who know the retail business,better capitalised and better customer service and many have a legit business,either a mail order or brick and mortar store,and these sellers have established accounts with their suppliers,AMZN does not have to spend so much time asking for invoice and checking to see if these invoices are real.
Ask yourself when you buy from Bestbuy or Nordstrom,do you insist to see their factory order so you know you are not buying a counterfeit ?
AMZN needs us as buyers,not as sellers,raise the entry barrier of selling on AMZN and many of us will have to drop out.
Unfortunately ,this is not an option for Ebay,being a person to person buy/sell community !