Comments on: Amazon Is Strictly Liable for Marketplace Items, Reinforcing That Online Marketplaces Are Doomed–Bolger v. Amazon

By: N. Flagrante

N. Flagrante — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:13:00 +0000

In reply to David S. Gingras. Exactly. I'm shocked he couldn't at least acknowledge the legitimate concern people have, that customers think--quite reasonably--that they are buying something directly from Amazon, and in fact they are buying dangerous defective junk straight from China that will burn their house down, at which point they'll have no recourse whatsoever.

By: N. Flagrante

N. Flagrante — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:09:00 +0000

In my view the difference between eBay and Amazon is, Amazon has blurred all the lines of who the seller is. Sometimes it is them, sometimes it is an unclear blur of them plus someone else, and sometimes it is entirely someone else. And it is often very hard to tell the difference! If I want to be careful and buy batteries I know are not counterfeit or defective, I know that I should avoid eBay. But now I can’t trust Walmart.com and Amazon either, even though they are they are behemoth sellers.

By: DB Cooper

DB Cooper — Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:47:00 +0000

In reply to David S. Gingras. Cry me a river; Bezos seems to be doing just fine already... You may be surprised to know that Amazon dotcom is not a sole proprietorship.

By: narendra chinuu

narendra chinuu — Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:36:00 +0000

Thanks for your information, you have given very useful and important information.

https://nareshit.com/angularjs-online-training/

By: News of the Week; September 9, 2020 – Communications Law at Allard Hall

News of the Week; September 9, 2020 – Communications Law at Allard Hall — Sun, 13 Sep 2020 08:53:51 +0000

[…] Amazon Is Strictly Liable for Marketplace Items, Reinforcing That Online Marketplaces Are Doomed–B… (Eric Goldman) […]

By: California Appeals Court Holds Amazon Strictly Liable | mtanenbaum

California Appeals Court Holds Amazon Strictly Liable | mtanenbaum — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 03:31:31 +0000

[…] If this is of interest to you, I invite you to read Professor Goldman’s extremely detailed analysis. While he is a law professor, he writes, amazingly, in English that humans can comprehend. Credit: Eric Goldman […]

By: Bill Silverstein

Bill Silverstein — Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:28:00 +0000

It is not a sky is falling. Amazon had inventory of the product, collected the money for the product, shipped the product to the customer. Sounds just like a brick and mortar store. It is not like the 3rd party seller model that Amazon supports, where the product is never in the hands of Amazon. It is not like the ebay model.

By: David S. Gingras

David S. Gingras — Wed, 09 Sep 2020 16:54:00 +0000

Professor Goldman is THE leading voice on this stuff, but I have to say — I just don’t see how the court got this one wrong? Strict product liability for brick-and-mortar vendors has existed for decades, and retailers have found ways to deal with it (i.e., by vetting vendors more carefully). This is a GOOD thing. It’s equally good to apply that same standard to Amazon. This makes all the sense in the world.

Putting aside retrospective arguments about what existing law says, let’s look forward — do we really want to live in a world where faceless/anonymous China-based vendors on Amazon can flood the market with defective products that cause serious injury, and Amazon can profit from this while bearing ZERO liability for the harm caused by products they sell?

I see NO legitimate policy argument in favor of that rule…..aside from the argument that imposing liability on Amazon would lead to financial devastation….for the richest man on the planet. Cry me a river; Bezos seems to be doing just fine already (and yes, I know: “But smaller website operators….”)

Again, strict product liability is already the law TODAY – if you buy a defective in-store product from Walmart, or a local mom-and-pop store (or any other brick-and-mortar store), the retailer is CURRENTLY subject to strict liability if that product hurts you. As a result, retailers have an incentive to carefully vet their vendors, ensure they are NOT “impossible to sue”, and have insurance.

If Amazon continues to sell products from 3rd party vendors, I see no good reason why they can’t adhere to the traditional rules of strict product liability that already apply to everyone else? The answer cannot be: “Because Chinese vendors MUST be allowed to dump cheap dangerous products on the market resulting in serious injury to consumers without any recourse.”

That’s a bad rule, and it would be a bad policy for ANY company to adopt since it would severely undermine consumer confidence. Seriously, if Amazon can sell defective products made by untouchable/anonymous vendors outside the US, and if US-based consumers have no recourse for injuries/death suffered as a result, why would anyone continue shopping on Amazon?

By: big_dman

big_dman — Tue, 08 Sep 2020 23:25:00 +0000

Unclear what you mean by “marketplace” in the context of this particular case. How was Amazon’s involvement here any different from a “traditional” retailer? Because it didn’t have title to what it was selling? That’s not really a distinguishing feature. And if there’s blood in the stone of the “marketplace seller,” as the court points out, Amazon is in the best position to get it. On the other hand, if there’s not, what public policy argument is there that the consumer, rather than Amazon should bear the risk of loss? Is a rule that “marketplace” buyers are SOL if something goes wrong really more supportive of your end goal than a rule that the entity actually in control of both ends of the transaction should be on the lookout? Genuinely curious.