The article explains another way to see it - because the manufacturer in this case (and most safety cases involving Amazon) are sketchy Chinese companies that are selling products that don't even attempt to meet any sort of safety standards, contain counterfeit safety markings, and are basically illegal to sell in the United States. Both the seller and manufacturer are impossible to track down when something goes wrong. I would bet even if you were able to track them down it would be impossible to enforce any fines or judgements against them because they are in an outside jurisdiction.

It can be argued that Amazon should have some sort legal responsibility to do a miminal vetting process for things it sells on it's site. Or, in other words, should be required to make an effort to only sell legal products.

"Not our problem that someone else is using our store to sell illegal and unsafe products that we store in our wearhouses, accept payment for, and deliver" shouldn't be a valid defense.

The consumer has no contract with the manufacturer. It is the vendor's responsibility. Of course, the vendor can sue the manufacturer but that's a separate thing.

However, Amazon is successfully arguing that they are not the vendor. The vendor is a third party using Amazon's platform.

Edit: that said, I think this needs to change.

In your eyes, what would be the mechanism for a US citizen to sue a manufacturer who has no presence outside of China other than the Amazon marketplace?

Its the bazar companys responsibility to avoid counterfeit goods, by having the company who trades their leave either there winnings and/or a safety deposit behind in case they get sued.

Its also to make sure, the legal system of the customer binds on the trading contract and inform/warn the customer that the item in question could be a molotow cocktail.

Amazon takes your money, they are responsible for the shit they receive.