[elliekelly]

> Amazon needs to stop with inventory comingling. They know it and refuse to stop, so they are culpable.

An appeals court just recently said this in their ruling on a consumer products liability case. Oberdorf v Amazon I believe.

Edit: Apologies, I was on my phone earlier and I didn't link to the opinion https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/18...

[Animats]

Yes.[1] At least in Pennsylvania. This decision is based on state law. Amazon claims to be insulated from product liability claims because it is not the "seller". The Third Circuit says Amazon is the "seller". "Amazon not only accepts orders and arranges for product shipments, but it also exerts substantial market control over product sales by restricting product pricing, customer service, and communications with customers."

Amazon can in turn sue the party who provided the product to recover what they have to pay out to the end customer, if they want.

Amazon allows their product providers to be somewhat anonymous. That weighed against them in the court decision. To the court, that looks like a retailer-wholesaler relationship. An actual seller has to disclose the actual name and address of the business in some states, including California. (B&P code section 17358).

[1] https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181041p.pdf

[elliekelly]

> At least in Pennsylvania. This decision is based on state law.

Only in part. Section B @ page 21 is the Court outlining their reasoning under the Second Restatement of Torts which has been adopted in some form or another in most states. The court could have ended with the Pennsylvania four-factor analysis but the ruling would have definitely been limited in scope. Instead, the 3rd Circuit has anticipated this case going to the Supreme Court and went through the effort of detailing the logic for a SCOTUS ruling that would hold Amazon accountable beyond the boundaries of Pennsylvania as well.