In the suit, Amazon argues that the company should not have legal responsibility to recall and remedy consumers for unsafe products sold on its marketplace by third-party sellers. Amazon claims that it is just an intermediary and logistics provider for third-party sales, similar to a delivery service, not a distributor or retailer that has a legal responsibility to carry out recalls. The CPSC ordered Amazon to recall more than 400,000 unsafe products in July 2024, after more than three years of adjudication.
“Instead of demonstrating its commitment to consumer safety, Amazon has fought the CPSC every step of the way for more than three years, and now it’s going to court. The law is clear that Amazon is a ‘distributor’ in this case and must carry out a recall. It’s absurd to suggest that because a company hosts a marketplace online it should be exempt from sensible requirements that help get hazardous products out of people’s homes and prevent them from being sold. The court should reject Amazon’s arguments. Taking Amazon at its word would mean hazardous products slipping through the cracks, even when they are capable of injuring or killing people.”
They’re right! They shouldn’t be responsible for products sold by third parties. If I go to Walmart and buy something, I shouldn’t be allowed to seek remedy from Amazon.
However, Amazon Marketplace is run by Amazon. If I buy something from Amazon (receipt is from Amazon) and it’s delivered by Amazon, I sure expect Amazon to remedy any issues, and I expect them to go up the chain to their marketplace suppliers seeking remedy too.
Can’t because they’re not in the same country? Then don’t let them sell stuff on your marketplace.
This is like Uber saying they’re not subject to taxi regulations because something something “on the web.” Yet they are functionally the same as a taxi service, except for their predatory surge pricing algorithm (which regular taxi firms do now too-- thanks a lot, Uberrhoids).
They’re right! They shouldn’t be responsible for products sold by third parties. If I go to Walmart and buy something, I shouldn’t be allowed to seek remedy from Amazon.
I don’t disagree but there is a point that should be considered: Amazon probably get a percentage from the sell, so it earn money even from third parties.
Now, I don’t think that Amazon has any responsability about recalling or any other remedy options, but they should at least forced to put a warning on the product page saying that the product is recalled or whatever it is. Even only sending a e-mail to every buyer is good (and Amazon obviously know who buy a product), then it is the buyer that will decide what to do.
🤔 guess we’ll all find out in like 10 years
If you buy an ACME widget at K-Mart, and it bursts into flames, do you sue ACME, or K-Mart?
Sue acme for damages, and kmart posts notices near the service counter to inform other buyers of the danger. I worked at kmart.
I’m assuming K-Mart also takes them off the shelves.
Oh, right, yes lol. And more notices hung at the empty shelves too.
You sue ACME, but K-mart still has to act on the recall.
Both, actually.
I don’t disagree. But I think they’re trying to make the nuance that Amazon isn’t the one that sold the item (K-Mart in your example). Instead, the third-party was the seller. And I guess that just makes Amazon a facilitator or something that isn’t responsible.
If i let my friend keep stolen property at my house, i am aiding a criminal. Why is Amazon exempt from consequences when someone they take a cut from a sale they allowed someone to make on their website?
If someone posts csam on this site and the admin willingly ignores it, they can’t really argue that they aren’t responsible for it.
The “willingly” makes the difference there. That changes it from negligence to intentional, and those are legally distinct.
If Amazon, or another marketplace, isn’t aware of the danger of a product sold by a vendor on their platform, it’s not clear if Amazon, or the market provider, is responsible. Amazon is arguing that they aren’t, but I don’t know enough of the law to say if that is a settled question.
One would think that they’d be expected to exercise due diligence. Not to do so would be negligence.
Amazon definately knows the return rates and reasons products get returned. It’s absurd that they wouldn’t know.
If the difference between Amazon-sold product’s and third-party-sold products isn’t clear (and it isn’t) then Amazon should be held responsible. It’s like if those AT&T sales people at Costco sold you a phone that caught your face on fire, then Costco is reasonably responsible because they are lending their credibility to a negligent third party. Possible mitigated if they made a good faith effort to distance themselves from third party sellers.
So there is some nuance to it (IMO).
If their name’s on it they absolutely should. But otherwise I can see their argument. Aside from keeping a product listed that they know is not safe.
Watch they do. I know because I’ve reported things for violating electrical standards, etc and made damn sure to emphasize that to their support, only to seethe same continue thing being sold months later.
keeping a product listed that they know is not safe.
Amazon wouldn’t do THAT, would they?
Oh right, they would. https://youtu.be/B90_SNNbcoU And not only would they continue to sell the item, but suppress reviews pointing out the issues.
Anecdotally, six years ago I purchased Ancor marine wiring crimps and 314 stainless steel bolts through Amazon. The crimps were counterfeit garbage and the stainless steel rusted and galled in about two weeks of saltwater exposure. Amazon’s response was basically “contact the manufacturer for warranty.” A quick glance at Amazon listings and it’s clear things have gone further downhill since.
So I regard Amazon doubling down on supply chain fuckery as a net win. I will never shop there again after that hardware BS. And more people will come to the same conclusion that Amazon is quickly becoming the Dollar General of online sales. Add on their shitty treatment of sellers, and good manufacturers go elsewhere, further accelerating the decline.
They also still sell automated litter boxes known to kill cats, and also suppress reviews about the problems.
I used my credit card on Amazon and the charges showed up as amazon then I bought it on Amazon. Amazon is a store, stores are responsible for removing dangerous items from their shelves and should facilitate the return of the dangerous items.
I asked their AI and it said that they are indeed a store. And we know that an AI from a company is responsible for what the AI says.
Edit and just for good measure I asked if they were a distributor and retailer.
If I hand a child a battery with leaky acid and it burns their hands, why should I be responsible? It’s not my battery!!
