Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
1–10 of 113 posts
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#2Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#3Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.
Its the bazar companys responsibility to avoid counterfeit goods, by having the company who trades their leave either there winnings and/or a safety deposit behind in case they get sued.
Its also to make sure, the legal system of the customer binds on the trading contract and inform/warn the customer that the item in question could be a molotow cocktail.
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#4I’ll be curious to see what happens when Amazon sells a fake Apple iPhone charger, which subsequently burns a house down. The difference here is that Amazon advertised it as Apple brand. Or is that going to be on the shoulders of the wholesaler^W”seller”, too?
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#5Since a year or more Amazon is tough on vendors in regards to safety issues. More products require regulatory approval and a single product review mentioning safety problems can get a product pulled.
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#6Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.
The article explains another way to see it - because the manufacturer in this case (and most safety cases involving Amazon) are sketchy Chinese companies that are selling products that don't even attempt to meet any sort of safety standards, contain counterfeit safety markings, and are basically illegal to sell in the United States. Both the seller and manufacturer are impossible to track down when something goes wrong. I would bet even if you were able to track them down it would be impossible to enforce any fines or judgements against them because they are in an outside jurisdiction.
It can be argued that Amazon should have some sort legal responsibility to do a miminal vetting process for things it sells on it's site. Or, in other words, should be required to make an effort to only sell legal products.
"Not our problem that someone else is using our store to sell illegal and unsafe products that we store in our wearhouses, accept payment for, and deliver" shouldn't be a valid defense.
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#7Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.
In your eyes, what would be the mechanism for a US citizen to sue a manufacturer who has no presence outside of China other than the Amazon marketplace?
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#8Sounds like there needs to be a “know your merchant” law. It makes sense to me that Amazon might not be liable, but it makes no sense at all that people can’t get in touch with the actual seller.
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#9Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.
The consumer has no contract with the manufacturer. It is the vendor's responsibility. Of course, the vendor can sue the manufacturer but that's a separate thing.
However, Amazon is successfully arguing that they are not the vendor. The vendor is a third party using Amazon's platform.
Edit: that said, I think this needs to change.
Re: Judge rules that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard it sold
#10Rightfully so, how can this be seen any other way? It's the manufacturer's responsibility to make a product that doesn't burn down your house.
In your eyes, what would be the mechanism for a US citizen to sue a manufacturer who has no presence outside of China other than the Amazon marketplace?
I could imagine maybe a law requiring foreign companies to obtain a bond when selling consumer goods, if they don't have substantial presence in the U.S. This bond would be a surety that consumers could recover damages in the case of negligence, at least up to a certain amount. I don't see the argument for requiring Amazon to perform that service, though.