A California court recently held Amazon.com responsible for the security of third-party sellers. It is also not a technology neutral platform as mentioned earlier. This decision could have implications for other companies, including Amazon.com, eBay and Craigslist.
In 2013, Douglas Soltisky bought a hoverboard with a defective battery. which represents a fire hazard. This decision was the result of events in 2013. Soltisky sued Amazon, they argued that they are not liable for the actions of third-party service providers under the Communications Decency Act. The California Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed and upheld Amazon. Sellers of defective goods must be able to control and limit product damage.
A California court has ruled that Amazon can be liable for defective goods from third-party sellers.
The court ruled that Amazon is the primary seller of goods and not just a “platform” that connects buyers and sellers. Therefore, they should be responsible for their safety. The court also rejected Amazon’s argument that they were just a channel for third-party sellers. According to the court:
Similar claims have been made against companies such as Uber, Airbnb and eBay. In 2012, a jury found Airbnb guilty of causing the death of a New York guest. after the company refused to inspect the guest The company was fined $2.8 million. A jury in San Francisco found Uber guilty of passenger negligence in 2015 and fined them $258 million.
Amazon will have to decide whether to appeal the decision. And if so, how to counter such claims?
in Pennsylvania As in other jurisdictions using the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A or Section 402A Equivalent Statutes, strict product liability is limited to the “seller” of the product. The court balances a number of factors to make a decision – warranty. Owning Sufficient Controls to Control Economic Benefits Design and manufacturing controls, and so on often arise, but most attention is paid to the level of control that an organization has. We’ve previously covered Section 402A and vendor status here , here , and here .
The trial originally moved to the Third Circuit after Amazon’s “Mediterranean District of Pennsylvania” in favor of Heather Oberdorf’s “claims in the summary judgment.” The plaintiff is suing Amazon under Pennsylvania law for strict liability. (warnings and design defects), negligence under various theories breach of warranty misrepresentation and loss of association following injury to a dog with a defective collar. The plaintiff purchased the dog collar through Amazon from a third-party seller who shipped the collar directly to her. This was granted primarily by the district court because it found that Amazon was not a “seller” within the meaning of Pennsylvania law.
Initially, the Third Circuit overturned the decision, decisively deeming Amazon a “seller” within the meaning of Pennsylvania law, although the court agreed to hear many appeals. But it effectively reversed the previous opinion. The court will reverse the previous decision. The only court to rule that Amazon is a “seller” until the Third Circuit agrees with a full review. earlier this year He gave testimony specifically on the subject of “salesmen”.
Writ of extradition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The Third Circuit noted that “it is impossible to predict what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide” on whether and how the Pennsylvania law applies to Amazon. The State of Pennsylvania has enacted Section 402A of the Penal Code under Pennsylvania law. (Second time) Therefore the company which is wholly liable must be a “seller” under section 402A. The Third Circuit held that it could not provide an adequate test for applying Section 402A to e-commerce businesses. And appropriate tests are either one-stage or two-stage tests. One-step test covers basic principles1. To determine a “buy” condition, the two-step test is the same as the one-step test. But there are basic conditions for valuing a company “that the business is selling a product of some kind.”
Third round is good. Ask for instructions to complete the first step. If the relevant tests involve a preliminary determination as to whether the company sells the product in question. The court considered Amazon’s argument that “the ‘seller’ must provide title or legal title.” But the Pennsylvania statute “contradicts the language of section 402A.”
The court suggested that the concept of “tangentiality” may be a reasonable basis for determining whether a company sells a product of this type, i.e., if the company’s role in the transaction is secondary it imposes heavy liability.