Thanks to a new court ruling, Amazon cannot hide behind its legal status as a product matchmaker and avoid compensating victims of the dangerous products its partners sell.<\/p>\n
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Amazon.com Servs., Inc.<\/em><\/a>, the plaintiff bought a wireless thermostat on amazon.com.<\/p>\n The thermostat, which was defective, sparked a massive house fire.<\/p>\n Amazon argued that it was not a \u201cseller\u201d in New York, so it was not subject to the strict liability law. Amazon merely provided the marketplace platform and logistical services, according to its lawyers.<\/p>\n The Court disagreed. \u201cThe product is virtually, and in cases such as a Fulfilment by Amazon transaction, physically on an Amazon shelf,\u201d the judges concluded.<\/p>\n \u201cAmazon seeks to have all the benefits of the traditional brick and mortar storefront without any of the responsibilities,\u201d they added.<\/p>\n For many decades, marketplace providers like Amazon claimed they were essentially flea market owners.<\/p>\n They simply provided people a platform. Therefore, they were not responsible for anything bad that happened to consumers.<\/p>\n The 2018 Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act<\/a> effectively ended this defense.<\/p>\n FOSTA held third party providers, like Backpage and Craigslist, responsible for user-provided content related to online sex trafficking<\/a>.<\/p>\n The State Farm<\/em> decision basically extended this doctrine to commercial sales.<\/p>\n Because of FOSTA, entities like Craigslist are now \u201cpublishers\u201d for sex trafficking purposes. And, because of State Farm, entities like Amazon are now \u201csellers\u201d for defective products purposes.<\/p>\n However, unlike FOSTA, the State Farm<\/em> decision, and related law, also give entities like Amazon a way out.<\/p>\n Examples include legal shields like indemnification or insurance agreements. It might be only a matter of time before courts at least dilute FOSTA.<\/p>\n But the State Farm<\/em> decision might stand the test of time.<\/p>\n Both Amazon and its fulfillment partners are in business to make money.<\/p>\n In most cases, social justice, safety, and all other concerns are a distant second to profits. So, many companies take shortcuts to reduce their costs and increase their profits.<\/p>\n There are two common shortcuts, and dangerous hip implants<\/a> illustrate both of them.<\/p>\n The hip is basically a cup-and-socket joint.<\/p>\n That construction makes the joint very flexible. For many years, artificial hips had a plastic cup and a metal socket.<\/p>\n As a result, the implants did not last too long. The plastic wore out.<\/p>\n Manufacturers touted MoM (metal-on-metal) hip implants as a significant improvement.<\/p>\n The all-metal parts were much more durable, according to Zimmer and other manufacturers. Furthermore, manufacturers insisted that the more durable design was also safer.<\/p>\n As it turns out, they were right about the durability, but wrong about the health effects.<\/p>\n With every step, metal grinds against metal, releasing microscopic metal flakes into the bloodstream.<\/p>\n Over time, these flakes build up, causing metallosis (metal poisoning).<\/p>\n Metallosis often affects vital organs. These effects often include hip implant displacement.<\/p>\n So, many victims have damaged hearts, lungs, or livers and\/or they need painful and expensive revision surgery to remove the defective device.<\/p>\n Many advanced MoM hip implants do not have the same metallosis problem. But there is another problem which often causes serious injury.<\/p>\n Metal parts which do not degrade over time are very expensive. It\u2019s much cheaper to use parts from China and other places which have weak or nonexistent consumer protection laws.<\/p>\nFOSTA Parallels<\/h2>\n
Types of Defective Products<\/h2>\n
Design Defect<\/h2>\n
Manufacturing Defect<\/h2>\n