Oberdorf v. Amazon.Com Inc.

930 F.3d 136, 141 (3rd Cir. 2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D retails its products as well as those of more than one million third-party vendors. These third-party vendors decide which products to sell, the means of shipping, and product pricing. D lists the products on the Amazon Marketplace, collects order information from consumers, and processes payments. In exchange for these services, D collects fees from each third-party vendor. If a sale is made on any listed product, D collects payment and delivers order information to the third-party vendor. D collects two types of fees: one is a commission, typically between seven and fifteen percent of the overall sales price; the other is either a per-item or monthly fee, depending on the third-party vendor's preference. Pursuant to the Agreement, D is classified as the third-party vendor's 'agent for purposes of processing payments, refunds, and adjustments . . . receiving and holding Sales Proceeds, remitting Sales Proceeds, charging a Credit Card, and paying D and its Affiliates. D may at any time cease providing any or all of the Services at its sole discretion and without notice, including suspending, prohibiting, or removing any listing. D can require vendors to stop or cancel orders of any product. If D determines that a vendor's actions or performance may result in risks to D or third parties, it may in its sole discretion withhold any payments to the vendor. D requires that its vendors release it and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold it harmless against any claim, loss, damage, settlement, cost, expense, or other liability. On December 2, 2014, P logged onto D's website. She typed search information for dog collars into Amazon's search terms box. She decided to purchase the dog collar at issue, which was sold by a third-party vendor, 'The Furry Gang.' The Furry Gang shipped the dog collar directly from Nevada to P, who put the collar on her dog, Sadie. Then, on January 12, 2015, while P was walking Sadie, the D-ring on the collar broke and the retractable leash recoiled into P's eyeglasses, injuring her and permanently blinding her in her left eye. Neither D nor P has been able to locate a representative of The Furry Gang, which has not had an active account on Amazon.com since May 2016. P sued D for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. The Court granted D's motion for summary judgment, finding that (1) D cannot be sued under Pennsylvania's strict products liability law because it does not constitute a 'seller' within the meaning of Pennsylvania strict liability law, and (2) P's claims are barred by the CDA because she seeks to hold D liable for its role as the online publisher of a third party's content. P appealed.