Comment by elliekelly

I believe this is the opinion[1] discussed in the article. The important bit explaining the court’s reasoning starts on page 16. Basically, Amazon inserts themselves in the middle of transactions beyond merely providing a “storefront”.

> Owners of malls typically do not serve as conduits for payment and communication in each transaction between a buyer and a seller. Moreover, they do not typically charge a per-item fee rather than a fixed amount to rent their storefronts. Instead, these actions – 1) interacting with the customer, 2) taking the order, 3) processing the order to the third party seller, 4) collecting the money, and 5) being paid a percentage of the sale – are consistent with a retailer or a distributor of consumer goods.

I would say Etsy, eBay, and a Shopify lean slightly more mall-like than Amazon but whether that difference is enough for their legal department to be comfortable concluding they’re definitely outside the scope of this ruling is impossible to say. You can bet they’ll all be reviewing and revising their third-party seller program documents, though.

Slightly related, there was a recent case in Philadelphia that came to a similar conclusion (holding Amazon responsible for defective third-party products) for an entirely different reason: the commingling of Amazon-owned inventory and third-party inventory.

Regardless of how Amazon reacts to this specific case I think the direction things are heading for Amazon with respect to products liability is pretty clear.

[1]https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Lo...