January-February 2025
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Finds Amazon Responsible for Hazardous Products Sold by Third-Party Sellers
The Global Trade Law Journal
Product Liability attorneys Robert Tonn and William Ringhofer co-authored an article featured in The Global Trade Law Journal about the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) recent decision regarding Amazon's liability for hazardous products sold by third-party sellers. The article discusses the CPSC's unanimous ruling that the company's "Fulfilled by Amazon" program renders the e-commerce giant a "distributor" subject to regulation under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). This decision makes Amazon potentially liable for hundreds of thousands of hazardous products sold through its platform and responsible for their recall. The authors explain the case background, Amazon's arguments and the CPSC's rejection of those arguments. They also explore the potential legal implications for other online marketplaces, suggesting that this ruling could set a significant precedent for e-commerce sites, potentially subjecting them to similar notice, reporting, replacement and recall obligations as traditional retailers.
READ: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Finds Amazon Responsible for Hazardous Products Sold by Third-Party Sellers
READ: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Finds Amazon Responsible for Hazardous Products Sold by Third-Party Sellers
Related Insights
Flooding the Zone Does Not Work for Opioid Plaintiffs in Maine
Shielding Against the Mass Arbitration Surge: Strategies to Mitigate Risk
Playing the MDL Game
A Proposed Answer to the 11th Circuit's Recent Certified Question About the Economic Loss Rule's Breadth
A Not-So-Brotherly Shove
No Liability for Contributing Funding for Research Activities
Collateral Litigation as a Deterrent of Bogus Research?
Double Shot Thursday: Express Preemption Based on an OTC Drug Monograph and the Delaney Clause and Personal Injury Litigation — FDA Delists Color Additive Red No. 3, But Will It Be Enough to Attract Even Dyed-in-the-Wool Plaintiffs Lawyers?
Ohio Does Not Recognize Public Nuisance Claims for Products