<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Amazon May Be Liable for Marketplace Items&#8211;Oberdorf v. Amazon	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/07/amazon-may-be-liable-for-marketplace-items-oberdorf-v-amazon.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/07/amazon-may-be-liable-for-marketplace-items-oberdorf-v-amazon.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:39:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: BurntToShreds		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/07/amazon-may-be-liable-for-marketplace-items-oberdorf-v-amazon.htm#comment-2632</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BurntToShreds]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20215#comment-2632</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[If someone purchases defective goods that cause them harm, then some manner of recourse needs to be made available to them.

Amazon made the decision to create its Marketplace, which opened the floodgates for defective and counterfeit goods to flourish and for situations that enable fly-by-night vendors like the Furry Gang to vanish without a trace.  

Your argument seems to be that, since the Furry Gang can’t be found, then the person who was harmed by their defective product shouldn’t be able to sue anybody.  It’s ridiculous.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If someone purchases defective goods that cause them harm, then some manner of recourse needs to be made available to them.</p>
<p>Amazon made the decision to create its Marketplace, which opened the floodgates for defective and counterfeit goods to flourish and for situations that enable fly-by-night vendors like the Furry Gang to vanish without a trace.  </p>
<p>Your argument seems to be that, since the Furry Gang can’t be found, then the person who was harmed by their defective product shouldn’t be able to sue anybody.  It’s ridiculous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: The Third Circuit’s Oberdorf v. Amazon opinion offers a good approach to reining in the worst abuses of Section 230 - Truth on the Market Truth on the Market		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/07/amazon-may-be-liable-for-marketplace-items-oberdorf-v-amazon.htm#comment-2335</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Third Circuit’s Oberdorf v. Amazon opinion offers a good approach to reining in the worst abuses of Section 230 - Truth on the Market Truth on the Market]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20215#comment-2335</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] response to the opinion has been mixed, to say the least. Eric Goldman, for instance, has asked “are we at the end of online marketplaces?,” suggesting that they “might in the future look [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] response to the opinion has been mixed, to say the least. Eric Goldman, for instance, has asked “are we at the end of online marketplaces?,” suggesting that they “might in the future look [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: July 10 roundup &#124; Overlawyered		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/07/amazon-may-be-liable-for-marketplace-items-oberdorf-v-amazon.htm#comment-2330</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[July 10 roundup &#124; Overlawyered]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20215#comment-2330</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Breaking from two other federal appeals courts, Third Circuit rules that Amazon as a platform can be sued under strict liability principles over defective items sold by third-party vendors on its site [Brendan Pierson, Reuters] Should the ruling stand, implications for online marketplaces are dire [Eric Goldman] [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Breaking from two other federal appeals courts, Third Circuit rules that Amazon as a platform can be sued under strict liability principles over defective items sold by third-party vendors on its site [Brendan Pierson, Reuters] Should the ruling stand, implications for online marketplaces are dire [Eric Goldman] [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: JohnThackr		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/07/amazon-may-be-liable-for-marketplace-items-oberdorf-v-amazon.htm#comment-2327</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnThackr]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2019 20:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20215#comment-2327</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s fairly apparent *why* Amazon wants feedback using their site and tools-- they want to avoid the situation where vendors pay off complaining customers under the table in order to keep negative reviews and feedback of shoddy products from being posted to the site where other potential buyers could see them, and Amazon would find out.



Essentially, the majority is saying that if Amazon practices any sort of quality control (whether designed to let other consumers see reviews or to let Amazon review) then they become strictly liable, whereas to avoid such liability they would have to let their marketplace become filled with lemons.


It&#039;s exactly like the situation that Section 230 is supposed to prevent (and that people mistakenly confuse Section 230 with).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s fairly apparent *why* Amazon wants feedback using their site and tools&#8211; they want to avoid the situation where vendors pay off complaining customers under the table in order to keep negative reviews and feedback of shoddy products from being posted to the site where other potential buyers could see them, and Amazon would find out.</p>
<p>Essentially, the majority is saying that if Amazon practices any sort of quality control (whether designed to let other consumers see reviews or to let Amazon review) then they become strictly liable, whereas to avoid such liability they would have to let their marketplace become filled with lemons.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s exactly like the situation that Section 230 is supposed to prevent (and that people mistakenly confuse Section 230 with).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
