• CA appeals court rules Amazon is legally liable for defective products

    From Pig Harris@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 15 09:13:05 2020
    XPost: alt.marketing.online.amazon.sellers, sac.politics, alt.politics.republicans
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    In contrast with previous rulings, the San Diego court decided Amazon had placed itself between the customer and distributor

    A California appeals court ruled Thursday that tech giant Amazon is
    legally liable for defective products sold on its site by third parties.

    In a unanimous decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeals' Judge
    Patricia Guerrero wrote that "under established principles of strict
    liability, Amazon should be held liable if a product sold through its
    website turns out to be defective."

    AMAZON CUTS DELIVERY CONTRACT JOBS WITH 7 COMPANIES

    The ruling rolled back a previous decision from a trial court that came
    out in favor of Amazon's motion for a summary judgment.

    However, the company can still appeal to the Golden State's Supreme Court.

    The case in dispute concerned a replacement laptop battery that Amazon
    shopper Angela Bolger purchased from a Hong Kong-based company called
    Lenoge Technology; Lenoge Technology went by the fictitious name "E-Life"
    on Amazon's online marketplace.

    In her suit against Amazon, Bolger claimed that "the battery exploded
    several months later, and she suffered severe burns as a result."

    While Bolger contended Amazon should be held responsible for the incident, Amazon argued that it was not liable because "it did not distribute, manufacture, or sell the product."

    However, the San Diego Superior Court found that Amazon's role in the sale
    was so outsized that it could be held accountable for the defective
    battery.

    Ticker Security Last Change Change %
    AMZN AMAZON.COM INC. 3,148.02 -13.00 -0.41%
    "Whatever term we use to describe Amazon's role, be it 'retailer,' 'distributor,' or merely 'facilitator,' it was pivotal in bringing the
    product here to the consumer," Guerrero wrote, noting that Amazon had
    "[placed] itself between Lenoge and Bolger in the chain of distribution."

    Amazon stated that it should be protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The act shields Internet companies
    from legal repercussions for content published by third parties on their
    sites.

    The court determined that section 230 was not applicable to the case
    because Bolger's allegations "[depended] on Amazon's own activities, not
    its status as a speaker or publisher of content provided by Lenoge for its product listing."

    Amazon cuts ties with small delivery companies across the country and over 1,200 delivery drivers are expected to lose their jobs in the next few
    months.

    Awaiting the results of a possible appeal, the court's move potentially
    opened up the retail giant to new and similar suits from other customers
    for faulty or damaged products.

    In the past, Amazon has faced multiple lawsuits like Bolger's, with most
    courts finding that it is not a "seller" under various states’ product liability laws.

    CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

    Third-party sellers now account for more than half of the products listed
    on the site.

    That said, Amazon listing review site Fakespot has concluded that almost
    20% of Amazon sellers are unreliable.

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/california-appeals-court-amazon- legally-liable-third-party-defective-products

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)