Bolger V. Amazon_com, LLC

Certain disruptive technologies cause problems in the legal landscape and confuse doctrines that have been established for decades. Amazon is among those disruptive technologies. The company has long argued that it shouldn’t be held to the same standard as retailers because it is a marketplace—not a retailer. In other words, Amazon believes it should be immune from product liability lawsuits that retailers can face. When a defective or dangerous product injures a member of the public, they can file a product liability lawsuit against the company that manufactured the product and the company that made the product available in the stream of commerce (the retailer). In one major case, the court found in favor of the plaintiff against Amazon. In this article, the Florida product liability lawyers at Halpern, Santos, & Pinkert will discuss the case and how it’s impacting the legal landscape.

Case background 

California plaintiff Angela Bolger purchased a replacement battery for her laptop on Amazon from a third-party seller. According to her lawsuit, the battery allegedly exploded, causing serious burn injuries to the plaintiff. Bolger filed suit against Amazon, alleging that the company was “strictly liable” for defective products made available to the public in its marketplace. It’s also worth noting that Amazon stored the battery, processed the payment, and shipped it to the plaintiff.

Addressing the allegations made by Bolger, Amazon argued that it was “only a marketplace” and thus, not subject to strict liability rules. The trial court sided with Amazon, but Bolger appealed.

This issue then became: Can Amazon be held strictly liable under California’s product liability laws for defective products introduced into the marketplace by third-party sellers when the company “significantly participates” in the distribution process?

The appeal 

Yes, the appeals court found in favor of the plaintiff and determined that Amazon was an “integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise.” The court highlighted Amazon’s role in the distribution chain. This included: Possessing the product, storing the product, attracting the buyer, listing the product, processing the payment, and then shipping the item to the consumer in Amazon packaging inside of an Amazon truck.

In addition, many of Amazon’s vendors are foreign companies that are difficult or impossible to file product liability lawsuits against. This leaves Amazon as the only accessible party an injured plaintiff can target. Further, Amazon has the ability to “influence product safety.”

The court rejected Amazon’s argument that it was merely a marketplace and found that its role went far beyond that of a traditional distributor. In other words, Amazon’s actions were central to the transaction.

Amazon also thought to use Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold itself immune to the actions of third-party sellers. This argument also failed. The plaintiff was allowed to pursue her case against Amazon and recover damages related to her injuries.

Talk to a Florida Product Liability Lawyer Today 

Halpern, Santos & Pinkert file product liability lawsuits against Amazon and its vendors. Call our Florida personal injury lawyers today to schedule a consultation, and we can begin preparing your case immediately.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/d075738.html