Amazon.com won more bad news from the courts on Thursday. In California, at least consumers who obtain defective products from the “market” segment can hold Amazon responsible for the damage, not just to the reseller, ruled by a California appeals court.
The case was presented through Angela Bolger of San Diego, who says he gained third-degree burns on his arms, legs and feet with a Chinese computer battery he bought on Amazon.
This is one of many cases of damage to customers for defective products in many state courts. Resolution can have much broader implications than in California, as Amazon’s online page is much more than products sold through Amazon. “More than a portion of the equipment sold at our points of sale comes from independent sellers,” Amazon says on its online page.
Battle Royale: Apple extracts “Fortnite” from the App Store a cellular payment service; Epic Games continues
Fallout: 6 national chain restaurants with problems in the middle of COVID-19 come with Outback Steakhouse, IHOP and Denny’s
The appeals procedure rejected the above ruling and determined that Amazon be treated like other stores and subject to California product liability laws.
“It’s overestimating the magnitude of this decision,” said Jeremy Robinson, caseyGerry’s spouse, who argued the case on Bolger’s behalf. “Consumers across the country will feel the impact.”
Amazon, according to demand, said it was not responsible because it had not distributed, manufactured or even sold the product, which was done through the third-party retailer, Lenoge, which markets itself as E-Life.
The court explained why he agreed with Bolger. “Amazon has been placed between Lenoge and Bolger in the distribution chain of the product in question here. Amazon accepted ownership of Lenoge’s product, stored it in an Amazon warehouse, attracted Bolger to the Amazon website, and provided it with a list of products for Lenoge’s product. , earned your payment for the product and sent it to you in an Amazon package … Whatever term we use to describe Amazon’s role, whether “retail,” “distributor” or simply “facilitator,” it is imperative to bring the product here to the consumer.”
In addition, the court ruled that Amazon is not immune from liability under Title 47 of the United States Code, Section 230, also known as the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which prevents Internet service providers from being held liable as third-party content speakers or publishers.
“This applies here because Bolger’s statements of objective liability are based on Amazon’s activities, its prestige as a speaker or content editor provided through Lenoge for its product list.”
Follow Jefferson Graham from USA TODAY (@jeffersongraham) on Twitter