Everest.com founder and CEO Bill Voss explains his reasoning behind trying to give consumers another e-commerce option other than Amazon, why they partner with nonprofits to give back and how the company was born out of frustration from the will of a retailer who carries all the products that outside enthusiasts could want.
An appeals court in California ruled Thursday that tech giant Amazon is legally liable for defective products sold on its site by third parties.
In a unanimous decision, the fourth District Court of Appeals’ Judge Patricia Guerrero wrote that “under established principles of strict liability Amazon should be held liable if a product sold through its website proves defective.”
AMAZON CUTS DELIVERY CONTRACT JOBS WITH 7 COMPANIES
The ruling rolls back an earlier decision from a lawsuit that came in favor of Amazon’s motion for a summary judgment.
However, the company can still appeal to the Supreme Court of the Golden State.
The case in dispute was over a replacement laptop battery that Amazon shopper Angela Bolger bought from a Hong Kong-based company called Lenoge Technology; Lenoge Technology went by the fictitious name “E-Life” on Amazon’s online market.
FILE PHOTO: Amazon boxes are seen stacked for delivery in Manhattan, New York, US, January 29, 2016. REUTERS / Mike Segar / File Photo
In her case against Amazon, Bolger claimed that “the battery exploded several months later, causing it to burn badly.”
While Bolger disputed that Amazon should be held responsible for the incident, Amazon claimed it was not liable because “the product did not distribute, produce or sell it.”
However, the San Diego Superior Court found that Amazon’s role in sales was so great that it could be held responsible for the defective battery.
| Ticker | Security | Last | Change | Change% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMZN | AMAZON.COM INC. | 3,148.02 | -13.00 | -0.41% |
“Whatever term we use to describe the role of Amazon, whether it be ‘retailer’, ‘distributor’, if only ‘facilitator’, it was very important in bringing the product here to the consumer,” Guerrero wrote , and found that Amazon had “[placed] even between Lenoge and Bolger in the chain of distribution. “
Amazon stated that it should be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The law protects Internet businesses from legal consequences for content published by third parties on their sites.
The court ruled that section 230 did not apply to the case because of Bolger’s allegations. “[depended] about Amazon’s own activities, not the status as a speaker and publisher of content provided by Lenoge for its product list. “
Awaiting the results of a possible appeal, the court’s direction opened up the retail giant’s potential for new and similar successes from other customers to defective or damaged products.
In the past, Amazon has dealt with multiple lawsuits such as Bolger’s, with most courts finding that it is not a “seller” under different product liability laws across different states.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT FOXBUSINESS
Third-party sellers now make up more than half of the products on the site.
That said, Amazon reviews review site Fakespot has concluded that nearly 20% of Amazon sellers are unreliable.
