Comment by GavinMcG | Hacker News Reader

Comment by GavinMcG | Hacker News Reader

Just some background info for other people without a law degree (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice):

Sellers of new products are in general strictly liable for harms those products cause to consumers. "Strictly liable" means that the consumer doesn't need to prove who was at fault (the seller vs. the distributor vs. the manufacturer, etc.). If you buy something new and it hurts you (assuming it isn't your fault) you can sue the seller. The seller can sue the manufacturer/distributor/etc. (or bring that party into the suit against them) and indeed, the contract between Amazon and third-party sellers includes a clause that these sellers will indemnify Amazon.

There are a few reasons for this general setup. Sellers are good "insurers" in that they typically sell a variety of products to a lot of people, and can thus spread risk reasonably well. Sellers generally know where they get their products, so they can pursue that party for the liability; consumers aren't in as good a position to do so.

Amazon wants to not be a seller, so as to avoid liability.

The actual decision [0] explains this concept in a bit more depth, starting on page 9.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021...

> Amazon wants to not be a seller

This is true. But at the same time Amazon tries very hard to hide any information about the customer from the seller. If the order is fulfilled by FBA, the 3rd party seller has the name of the customer and that's it. Amazon also can facilitate email exchange through their server, but most customers do not see it (getting into spam?) or ignore it. So in practice, you rarely have a reliable channel to communicate with your "customer".

Compare to eBay - you have all the info for the customer, can follow up, resolve issue, etc. On eBay there is no confusion about who is "the seller".

I understand why Amazon is doing that - theirs customers probably hate idea of dealing with individual sellers and instead prefer the uniformity of dealing with Amazon. But then the position that Amazon is not "the seller" kinda weak.

Amazon now shares your email with sellers, exactly to avoid this argument.

Only if you tell Amazon it's for certain support-related reasons. If you contact a customer for any reason that Amazon doesn't approve, you can have your account suspended.

Yes. I too find that Amazon tries to hide (maybe even obscure) information of who the third party seller is.

So is amazon a marketplace or a seller. Hard to decide. I think courts should also give importance to how amazon markets itself.

EBay, always, marketed itself as a marketplace. There was never a confusion about whether it's a "store" or a "marketplace".

From the Amazon banners/ads/and other marketing material, I always get the sense that Amazon tries to market itself as a "store" and not as a "marketplace".

With that and the _hiding/obscuring_ of third party seller information on the amazon website, I think courts should treat Amazon as a seller/store more than a marketplace.

> "Strictly liable" means that the

> consumer doesn't need to prove

> who was at fault

IANAL

AIUI 'Strict liability' means that the consumer doesn't even need to show that any party was at fault. The bad thing happened, and the seller/whoever will be held liable even if all of their actions were perfectly reasonable.

For most torts, you have to show intent or negligence. But for strict liability torts, the outcome is enough.

Anyone in the supply chain is a potential party to products liability lawsuits, not just the supplier and retailer. So you have manufacturers, shippers, etc...

Yes, you can of course sue the manufacturer directly. But the key issue Amazon is fighting is whether they're liable.

My point is anyone in the supply chain is jointly and severally liable for products liability under the law.

It is indisputable Amazon is in the supply chain of these products, and of course of a case by case basis their role(s) for each product is different, including, but not limited to: at minimum promoting the products on their online marketplace, facilitating the purchase of the products (potentially conducting the transaction itself via Amazon gift cards), storing/warehousing product, shipping/delivering product, in some instances they are the wholesaler of product, etc...

They should be thankful for the time they had escaping obvious legal liability and the opportunity to get a decade+ head start on any new marketplace that wants to compete and will have to contend with these legal risks. Amazon will fight it to tooth and nail to the end, and then start with appeals, they could spend billions a year and lose but it would be worthwhile because the simple number of dangerous products on their marketplace some of them resulting in death.

I can sue the Post Office for delivering a bad product to me?

Last year we had issues where medications didn't arrive on time or were outright lost. Or farmers complained that chickens that were shipped arrived dead due to DeJoy's efforts to "improve" USPS.

So I would imagine that yes, you could.

> I can sue the Post Office for delivering a bad product to me?

Strange question, in USA, the is fact you can sue anyone for anything in a civil suit. It's up to a court to decide whether your case has merit or not.

Post Office has no knowledge of what's inside the box, whereas Amazon not only knows it but often is the one that puts things in that box.

No, because the federal government, including the post office, has sovereign immunity from lawsuits. There is the Federal Tort Claims Act that carves out some exceptions but I think is silent on the Post Office. Here is an article from the claims journal: https://www.claimsjournal.com/columns/road-to-recovery/2020/...

I once worked on a case where the client was hit by a bus operated by the County (so a local government in a particular state), the suit was not entirely barred but there was a cap on damages which would not otherwise exist if say it were a bus being operated by a private company (which would of course generally have a commercial insurance policy as well). It has been almost 10 years but at the time I think the cap was $200,000. Interestingly there is/was a mechanism to request the state (I think the state legislature) waive the damages cap on a case by case basis, but unless your firm was politically connected and donated to political campaigns good luck with that.

It makes sense that customers can sue Amazon directly. Otherwise any party in the supply chain will point to their suppliers until you end up at the sweatshop worker in Asia.

There's an antique store near me than works on consignment. I wonder how all this liability works there. I'd be surprised if the mom and pop are liable for the 300 stalls in the store.

This only applies to new items, an antiques consignment store has completely different liability rules.

Those aren't new products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com