[DreamSpinner]

Thankyou for the link - it's quite interesting. Here's the section:

In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that courts later tasked with determining whether an actor is a “seller” should consider whether the following four factors apply:

(1) Whether the actor is the “only member of the marketing chain available to the injured plaintiff for redress”;

(2) Whether “imposition of strict liability upon the [actor] serves as an incentive to safety”;

(3) Whether the actor is “in a better position than the consumer to prevent the circulation of defective products”; and

(4) Whether “[t]he [actor] can distribute the cost of compensating for injuries resulting from defects by charging for it in his business, i.e., by adjustment of the rental terms.”

[elliekelly]

What’s interesting too is the court could have concluded their reasoning with this four-factor analysis but then the ruling would most certainly be limited to Pennsylvania. So while they explicitly said they aren’t making the determination for marketplaces other than Amazon they do go through the effort in Section B (page 21) to lay out additional rationale/legal justification that brings Amazon’s actions within the meaning of “seller” in other jurisdictions as well.