Judge Rules Amazon Isn't Liable For Damages Caused By a Hoverboard It Sold (cnbc.com)

Earlier this week, a judge in Tennessee ruled that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard that spontaneously exploded and burned down a family's house, even though they bought it on Amazon's website. "The plaintiff claimed that Amazon didn't properly warn her about the dangers they knew existed with the product, but the judge didn't agree," reports CNBC. At the time, hoverboards were all the rage; Amazon sold almost 250,000 of them over a 30-day period. The plaintiff claims the company had an obligation to warn customers properly about the dangers it knew existed. "[The plaintiff] bought the hoverboard on Amazon, the receipt came from Amazon, the box had an Amazon label and all the money was in Amazon's hands," adds CNBC. "[The plaintiff] has been unable to find the Chinese manufacturer of the device." From the report: It's the latest legal victory for Amazon, which has for years fended off litigation related to product quality and safety by arguing that, for a big and growing part of its business, it's just a marketplace. There are buyers on one end and sellers on the other -- the argument goes -- and Amazon connects them through a popular portal, facilitating the transaction with a sophisticated logistics system. The courts are reinforcing the power of Amazon's business model as the ultimate middleman. But for American consumers, there's growing cause for concern. [...] But if Amazon isn't liable when faulty products sold through its website cause personal injuries and property damage, customers are often left with no recourse. That's because it's frequently impossible for consumers to figure out who manufactured the defective product and hold that party responsible.

Comments

Amazon should be responsible

[drinkypoo]

"[The plaintiff] has been unable to find the Chinese manufacturer of the device."

If Amazon can't put the buyer in contact with the company which produced the device, then they should be liable. They sold it, they should be responsible for it. Frankly, even if they can put the person in contact, they should still be responsible, and recovering damages from the supplier should be their problem.

We have consumer protection laws for a reason, and that reason is that not having them costs everyone money. This decision simply lets Amazon push the cost of doing business off onto the court system, which means We The People have to pay for their cost of doing business.

Re:Amazon should be responsible

[goombah99]

agree. amazon is acting like Uber, falsly saying the sellers are (the equivalent) to Uber's fiction of "contractors" not employees. Hoepfully california or another big state can fix this.

Re:Amazon should be responsible

[PolygamousRanchKid]

How do classic brick & mortar retailers deal with this . . . ?

If I march into Wallgreens and buy a bottle of vitamins, and the vitamins turn out to be a Dead Russian cocktail of ricin, polonium and nerve gas . . . is Wallgreens on the hook . . . ? Or can they say,

"We bought a large discount lot of them on the Darknet, and don't know how to contact the seller. But the seller is liable, not us".

Re:Amazon should be responsible

[drinkypoo]

Not sure I agree with THAT statement. In those cases, they would only be responsible for replacement or refund of what they sold.

Amazon completed the sale, collected payment, and made a profit. They ARE the seller. The person they refer to as the seller on their site is actually a supplier. This is wholly different from the example of a flea market, where people are charged for space rent and then they really are the seller; they collect payment, and complete the sale.

Amazon is the seller, they sold the item, therefore they should be responsible for the damages — which in this case dramatically exceeds the replacement/refund value of the product which they sold.

Re:Amazon should be responsible

[gnick]

IANAL, but it seems to me that Walgreen's would be responsible for their brand of vitamin but not the others. It would be responsible of them to play their part in a recall, but I don't know why they'd be on the hook for a QC fail at Dead Russian brand vitamins.

Re:Amazon should be responsible

[clovis]

Why do so many people think that basic consumer protection is some sort of onerous burden?

Because it is. Every regulation tells us what we can't do or what we have to do in order to do business. When you add them up, they're onerous and they prevent people from getting what they want.

Adults aren't little children. We're capable of making decisions based on what the risks are. If you're worried about cheap Chinese products on Amazon, then there is a simple solution, pay attention to the listed Manufacturer and don't buy one! Why the need to use force to prevent the other 250,000 people who want to from buying one?

We're capable of making decisions based on what the risks are.

And that's wrong. We can only make decisions based on the information that we have. If we don't have the data regarding risks, then we don't know what the risks are, then we cannot make a decision based on the risks.

The issue here isn't that the board caught fire, but rather that in this case Amazon knew they caught fire, but did not provide the information to the buyer.
From the embedded link:
"Fox's case was filled with testimony and evidence illustrating that Amazon execs were concerned about the hoverboards sold on its site. One executive deposed in the case said he'd removed a hoverboard from his house before Christmas after hearing about "potential issues."

I have to agree with the plaintiff. If a store sells a product that they know is defective or dangerous, then they are obligated to clearly warn the buyer, and if possible, warn the previous purchasers. It is perfectly OK to sell the dangerous products that are sold to the public everyday, but they are required to carry warnings.

Re:Not Amazon

[drinkypoo]

I do not think the issue is Amazon in this case: it is Chinese sellers and customer protection in a globalized world in general.

Amazon is deliberately enabling these sellers, with full knowledge that they will defraud customers. Then they are failing to maintain contact information on them that would permit customers to attempt to recoup their losses. They are willfully contributing to this illegal activity, and making literally zero effort to prevent it, which is why they should be held liable.