A Pennsylvania woman who was partially blinded due to an injury caused by a retractable dog leash is suing the vendor that sold the alleged defective dog collar she purchased on Amazon, as well as the tech giant itself. As a result the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, issued an opinion that said Amazon qualified as a “seller” under Pennsylvania state law, (at least for the purposes of the suit). The court also said that Amazon “fails to account for the fact that… third-party vendors can communicate with the customer only through Amazon,” which “enables third-party vendors to conceal themselves from the customer, leaving customers injured by defective products with no direct recourse.”
Foundation of the Case
The woman purchased a dog collar for $18.48 on Amazon from seller The Furr Gang. In January 2015, she had attached a retractable dog leash to the collar to walk her 70-pound dog when the collar’s ring suddenly snapped apart, causing the leash to hit the woman’s left eye and partially blind her. The woman sued the vendor and Amazon.
Relevant Laws and Legal Protections
In 1996, the Communications Decency Act was passed, which shielded companies from liability for publishing content that third parties state on their websites. Amazon and other sites have used this law to protect them from liability stemming from injuries caused by products listed on their sites. This law was originally written to protect online bulletin boards from being named as defendants in defamation lawsuits, but recent judicial decisions have broadly interpreted it so that big technology companies have been able to evade liability for all types of claims.
In the Pennsylvania woman’s case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the woman’s products liability lawsuit against Amazon, finding that Amazon’s involvement in the transactions extends well beyond an editorial function and instead plays a more significant part in the sales process. The appellate court explicitly found that the claims regarding strict liability and negligence based on Amazon’s role as a participant in the sales process are not barred by the Communications Decency Act.
Additionally, the court held that Amazon was the “seller” of a product based on Pennsylvania’s product liability law even though the company is not in physical possession of the product, another legal argument that has been able to insulate online tech companies from liability.
Potential Impact of the Case
If the case is successful, the tech giant and other large tech retailers could find themselves directly liable for defective products found on their sites. This could require Amazon to have to change its entire business model to remain successful. Other tech companies could be at risk of losing their insulation from products liability if the CDA is found to not apply in these types of cases.
The potential holding in the case could also extend well beyond product liability suits. Other mega companies like Google and Apple could be held liable for products and services they provide. Another federal court recently made a similar holding, finding that Communications Decency Act does not protect tech companies from liability as being the seller of products in a case involving an allegedly defective headlamp that caused a house fire. However, unlike the Pennsylvania case, that court did not find that Amazon was the “seller” of the product.
If you were injured by a defective product purchased on a large online retail site, consult with an experienced product liability lawyer who can assess your case and identify the parties potentially legally liable for your injuries.
