HHJ Trial Attorneys

San Diego Car Accidents & Injury Lawyers

Close this search box.

Understanding the Bolger v. Amazon Case: A Landmark Decision in Product Liability

In the case of Bolger v. Amazon, the Court of Appeal delved into the issue of whether Amazon could be held strictly liable for defective products sold by third-party vendors on its platform. The plaintiff, Ms. Bolger, purchased a replacement laptop battery from a third-party seller on Amazon. Unfortunately, the battery exploded after several months, causing severe burns and necessitating hospitalization. Bolger subsequently filed several claims, including strict liability, against both Amazon and the third-party seller.

Initial Ruling and Appeal

Amazon sought summary judgment, arguing that strict products liability did not apply to them since they neither distributed, manufactured, nor sold the battery. The trial court sided with Amazon, granting their motion and dismissing the case. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that Amazon could indeed be strictly liable for the defective battery sold by the third-party seller on its site.

Court of Appeal’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeal noted that strict liability in California extends beyond retailers to include entities involved in the distribution of consumer goods. By comparing this case to previous rulings, such as Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co. and Barth v. B. F. Goodrich Tire Co., the Court concluded that Amazon, although not a traditional seller, functioned as an intermediary and was a crucial link in the distribution chain.

Amazon’s Role in the Transaction

The Court emphasized Amazon’s significant involvement in the transaction. Amazon received the product from the seller, stored it, listed it on their website, processed the payment, and shipped the item in Amazon-branded packaging. These actions demonstrated Amazon’s pivotal role in bringing the product to the consumer, justifying the application of strict liability.

Public Policy Considerations

The Court supported its decision with several public policy arguments:

  1. Accessibility to Redress: Amazon often serves as the only accessible entity in the distribution chain for injured plaintiffs, especially when third-party sellers are based overseas. The court pointed out the challenges that plaintiffs face when other parties in the chain are unreachable or based in jurisdictions with less stringent legal frameworks.
  2. Incentive for Safety: Like traditional retailers, Amazon has the capacity to ensure product safety and exert pressure on manufacturers to adhere to safety standards. The Court highlighted Amazon’s ability to enforce compliance with safety regulations and to suspend sales of unsafe products, thus enhancing consumer protection.
  3. Distribution of Costs: Amazon can distribute the costs of compensating injured plaintiffs among itself and third-party sellers through their ongoing contractual relationships. The Court noted Amazon’s existing mechanisms to allocate these costs, including indemnification clauses and control over seller payments.

Rejection of Amazon’s Arguments

The Court systematically refuted Amazon’s arguments against strict liability:

  1. Definition of Seller: The Court dismissed the notion that Amazon was not a seller or distributor, emphasizing that strict liability aims to ensure justice over technical definitions. The doctrine of strict liability is designed to transcend rigid classifications and focus on the role of an entity in the distribution process.
  2. Control Over Product: Amazon’s substantial control over the product and the transaction process established a basis for liability. The Court pointed out that Amazon’s involvement went beyond mere facilitation, encompassing critical stages of the product’s journey from seller to consumer.
  3. Role in Distribution: Amazon’s continuous relationship with third-party sellers differentiated it from entities like auctioneers or landlords. The Court noted that Amazon’s contractual arrangements and operational control made it a central figure in the product’s distribution.

Immunity Under Section 230

Amazon’s claim of immunity under 47 U.S.C. section 230, which protects interactive computer service providers from being treated as publishers of third-party content, was also rejected. The Court agreed with federal decisions that section 230 does not apply to strict product liability claims. The plaintiff’s claims were based on Amazon’s role in the distribution chain, not on the publication of content, and thus fell outside the scope of section 230 protections.

The Bolger decision marks a significant advancement in consumer protection in the digital age. The ruling underscores the evolving nature of law to meet contemporary challenges. As noted in the decision, the judiciary must adapt legal principles to align with modern realities and ensure justice.

Practical Implications for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

While Bolger sets a precedent, it does not guarantee that Amazon will be held liable in all similar cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys must meticulously establish Amazon’s control and relationship with third-party sellers in each case, supported by robust evidence and expert testimony. They should focus on demonstrating the extent of Amazon’s involvement and its ability to influence the safety and distribution of products sold on its platform.

This landmark case underscores the judiciary’s role in adapting legal doctrines to protect consumers and maintain fairness in the rapidly evolving digital marketplace. By holding Amazon accountable for its role in the distribution of defective products, the Court has paved the way for greater accountability and consumer protection in the e-commerce industry.


Response time within minutes