|
|
|
|
|
by eigenvector
1830 days ago
|
|
An important and related fact, addressed in the article, is that Amazon currently escapes consumer product liability laws because they are neither seller nor manufacturer. But they also cannot tell you with any degree of precision who the seller or manufacturer is. There is a public interest in making /someone/ liable for defective products, as it provides a incentive for sellers to do due diligence on what they sell. The party most able to root out sellers of defective or counterfeit goods is probably Amazon, but they currently have no incentive to do so as the liability is offloaded to judgement-proof Marketplace sellers. Amazon's business innovation here is figuring out how to run a multi billion dollar retail business without product liability, and that's negative for society. |
|
> California’s Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) determined that Amazon could be held strictly liable for injuries a consumer suffered from a defective hoverboard she bought from the retailer, even though Amazon neither manufactured nor sold the product.
> The plaintiff in this latest case, Kisha Loomis, bought a hoverboard through the Amazon marketplace. The Amazon marketplace carries both products sold by Amazon and by third parties. In this case, the hoverboard was sold by a Chinese company called SMILETO.
> The Court of Appeal... [held] that a party who has control over and is integral to the chain of commerce, and receives a financial benefit from it, is strictly liable for injury caused by a product’s defects.