Oberdorf v. Amazon.Com. Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-1041,18-1041 |
| Citation | 930 F.3d 136 |
| Parties | Heather R. OBERDORF; Michael A. Oberdorf, her husband, Appellants v. AMAZON.COM INC., a Washington Corporation |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
On January 12, 2015, Heather Oberdorf returned home from work, put a retractable leash on her dog, and took the dog for a walk. Unexpectedly, the dog lunged, causing the D-ring on the collar to break and the leash to recoil back and hit Oberdorf’s face and eyeglasses. As a result, Oberdorf is permanently blind in her left eye.
Oberdorf bought the collar on Amazon.com. As a result of the accident, she sued Amazon.com, including claims for strict products liability and negligence. The District Court found that, under Pennsylvania law, Amazon was not liable for Oberdorf’s injuries. In its opinion, the District Court emphasized that a third-party vendor—rather than Amazon itself—listed the collar on Amazon’s online marketplace and shipped the collar directly to Oberdorf. Those facts were the basis for the District Court’s two main rulings.
First, the District Court found that Amazon is not subject to strict products liability claims because Amazon is not a "seller" under Pennsylvania law. Second, the District Court found that Oberdorf’s claims are barred by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) because she seeks to hold Amazon liable for its role as the online publisher of third-party content.
Both issues in this case pertain to Amazon’s role in effectuating the sale of products offered by third-party vendors. Therefore, we begin by describing the anatomy of a sale on Amazon.com.1
Amazon is the world’s most valuable retail company.2 Its website is an online marketplace where Amazon retails its own products as well as those of more than one million third-party vendors.3 These third-party vendors decide which products to sell, the means of shipping, and product pricing. For its part, Amazon lists the products on the Amazon Marketplace, collects order information from consumers, and processes payments. In exchange for these services, Amazon collects fees from each third-party vendor.
In order to use Amazon’s services, a third-party vendor must assent to Amazon’s Services Business Solutions Agreement. This Agreement governs every step of the sales process.
Once a third-party vendor has assented to the Agreement, the vendor chooses which product or products it would like to sell using Amazon’s website. This choice is, with some notable exceptions, left to the discretion of the vendor. Among the exceptions are products that Amazon determines are illegal, sexually explicit, defamatory, or obscene.
When the third-party vendor has chosen a product that it wants to offer on Amazon’s website, the vendor provides Amazon with a description of the product, including its brand, model, dimensions, and weight. Pursuant to the Agreement, the vendor must also provide Amazon with digital images of the product, as well as other information such as shipping and handling options, product availability, in-stock status, and any other information reasonably requested by Amazon.
Based on this information, Amazon formats the product’s listing on its website. This function, too, is provided for in the Agreement, by which Amazon retains the right in its sole discretion to determine the content, appearance, design, functionality, and all other aspects of the Services, including by redesigning, modifying, removing, or restricting access to any of them. In fact, the Agreement grants Amazon a royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to commercially or non-commercially exploit in any manner, the information provided by third-party vendors.
The third-party vendor can then choose which, if any, of Amazon’s other services it will use in conjunction with listing its product on Amazon’s website. For example, Amazon offers "Amazon Clicks," an advertising service in which Amazon highlights and promotes the vendor’s product to customers. Amazon also offers a "Fulfillment by Amazon" service, in which it takes physical possession of third-party vendors’ products and ships those products to consumers. Otherwise, the vendor itself is responsible for shipping products directly to consumers.
The listed price for the product is chosen by the third-party vendor, subject to one exception: Vendors may not charge more on Amazon than they charge in other sales channels. Nor, according to the Agreement, may third-party vendors offer inferior customer service or provide lower quality information about products than in other sales channels. To the extent that third-party vendors need to communicate with customers regarding their orders on Amazon, they must do so through the Amazon platform.
With these preliminaries completed, Amazon lists the product online and sales begin. As customers make purchases on Amazon’s website, Amazon collects payment and delivers order information to the third-party vendor. At checkout, the customer can choose any shipping method offered by the third-party vendor, and any promises made by the vendor with respect to shipping date must be met. Amazon ensures compliance with this obligation by requiring the vendor to send Amazon shipping information for each order. In addition, vendors have a powerful interest in providing quality products and ensuring timely delivery, as Amazon allows shoppers to publicly rate the vendors and their products.
In exchange for its role in the transaction, Amazon collects two types of fees: one is a commission, typically between seven and fifteen percent of the overall sales price; the other is either a per-item or monthly fee, depending on the third-party vendor’s preference. At least once every two weeks, Amazon remits all sales proceeds, minus fees, to the vendor. Pursuant to the Agreement, Amazon is classified as the third-party vendor’s "agent for purposes of processing payments, refunds, and adjustments ... receiving and holding Sales Proceeds on your behalf, remitting Sales Proceeds to Your Bank Account, charging your Credit Card, and paying Amazon and its Affiliates amounts you owe ...."4
Throughout each step of the sales process, Amazon may at any time cease providing any or all of the Services at its sole discretion and without notice, including suspending, prohibiting, or removing any listing. Amazon also retains other important privileges. For example, Amazon can require vendors to stop or cancel orders of any product. If Amazon determines that a vendor’s actions or performance may result in risks to Amazon or third parties, it may in its sole discretion withhold any payments to the vendor. Furthermore, Amazon requires that its vendors release it and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold it harmless against any claim, loss, damage, settlement, cost, expense, or other liability.
On December 2, 2014, Heather Oberdorf logged onto Amazon’s website. She typed search information for dog collars into Amazon’s search terms box. She decided to purchase the dog collar at issue, which was sold by a third-party vendor, "The Furry Gang." The Furry Gang shipped the dog collar directly from Nevada to Oberdorf, who put the collar on her dog, Sadie. Then, on January 12, 2015, while Oberdorf was walking Sadie, the D-ring on the collar broke and the retractable leash recoiled into Oberdorf’s eyeglasses, injuring her and permanently blinding her in her left eye.
Neither Amazon nor Oberdorf has been able to locate a representative of The Furry Gang, which has not had an active account on Amazon.com since May 2016.
Oberdorf filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, bringing claims for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.5 Oberdorf propounds two separate theories of strict product liability: (1) failure to provide adequate warnings regarding the use of the dog collar, and (2) defective design of the dog collar. She also asserts a variety of negligence theories, namely that Amazon was negligent in (1) distributing, inspecting, marketing, selling, and testing of the dog collar in an unreasonable manner; (2) allowing the dog collar to enter the stream of commerce in a dangerous condition; (3) failing to conduct a proper hazard analysis; (4) failing to follow the guidelines of the "safety hierarchy"; and (5) failing to provide the product with features, elements, precautions, or warnings that would have made it safer.
The District Court granted Amazon’s motion for summary judgment, finding that (1) Amazon cannot be sued under Pennsylvania’s strict products liability law because it does not constitute a "seller" within the meaning of Pennsylvania strict liability law, and (2) Oberdorf’s claims are barred by the CDA because she seeks to hold Amazon liable for its role as the online publisher of a third party’s content.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because our review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary, we affirm only where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."6 In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, we view all facts and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, in this case, the Oberdorfs.7
We begin our analysis by addressing Amazon’s contention that it is not subject to Oberdorf’s strict products liability claims.
Because our subject matter jurisdiction stems from the parties’ diverse citizenship, we apply Pennsylvania law in deciding whether the District Court properly dismissed Oberdorf’s strict products liability claim.8 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Restatement of Torts § 402A applies to Pennsylvania...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Amazon.com, Inc.
..." The same day the trial court entered judgment, Oberdorf was affirmed in part and vacated in part (Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc. (3d Cir. 2019) 930 F.3d 136, 153–154 ) in a decision which was then vacated when a petition for rehearing en banc was granted (Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc. (3d Cir.......
-
In re Facebook, Inc.
..., 219 F. Supp. 3d at 538 ; Hinton v. Amazon.com.dedc, LLC , 72 F. Supp. 3d 685, 687, 692 (S.D. Miss. 2014) ; and Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc. , 930 F.3d 136, 153 (3d Cir. 2019), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated , 936 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2019). For cases involving negligence or related ca......
-
Force v. Facebook, Inc.
...the claim would not treat the defendant as the publisher of a third party's content. Cf. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc. , No. 18-1041, 930 F.3d 136, 153–54, 2019 WL 2849153, at *12 (3d Cir. July 3, 2019) (holding that the CDA does not bar claims against Amazon.com "to the extent that" they "re......
-
Gonzalez v. Google LLC
...of the data, because the claim would not treat the defendant as the publisher of a third party's content. Cf. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc. , 930 F.3d 136, 153 (3d Cir. 2019) (holding that the CDA does not bar claims against Amazon.com "to the extent that" they "rely on Amazon's role as an ac......
-
Beyond The Headlines: Analysis Of The Executive Order On Preventing Online Censorship And The Potential Impact On Section 230 Policy
...1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). 3. Maynard et al. v. SNAPCHAT, INC., 816 S.E.2d 77 (Ga App. 2018). 4. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. July 3, 2019) argued en banc No. 18-1041(February 19, 2020), certifying questions to Pennsylvania Supreme Court -- F.3d --, 2020 W......
-
Can Amazon Be Strictly Liable For Defects In The Products Sold Through Its Website? A U.S. Appeals Court Says "Yes"
...consumers. We will provide a follow-up post after the full Third Circuit reaches its decision. Footnotes 1 Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 136, 141 (3d 2 Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 136 (3d. Cir. July 17, 2019) (No. 18-1041). To view the ori......
-
Updates X3
...that acted as the online equivalent of a shopping center to be a "seller" for product liability purposes. See Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 930 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2019) (purporting to apply Pennsylvania law). Just as the Merck case exemplified bureaucratic empire-building, we thought that Obe......
-
ENJOINING NON-LIABLE PLATFORMS.
...immunity from liability deriving from third-party content"). (39.) See Gillespie, supra note 14, at 12. (40.) Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 930 F.3d 136, 140 (3rd Cir. 2019), vacated on other grounds, 818 Fed. Appx. (41.) Id. (42.) Id. (43.) Id. at 143. (44.) Id. at 151-52. (45.) Id. at 148-......
-
WHO MODERATES THE MODERATORS? A LAW & ECONOMICS APPROACH TO HOLDING ONLINE PLATFORMS ACCOUNTABLE WITHOUT DESTROYING THE INTERNET.
...loophole on the Internet that happens to make them, as well as good laws, harder to enforce. (133) See Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 136, 142 (3d Cir. 2019) ("Neither Amazon or Oberdorf has been able to locate a representative of the Furry Gang, which has not had an active account ......
-
Amazon Marketplace and Third-Party Sellers: The Battle over Strict Product Liability.
...the product. Doing so is in the best interests of Amazon's customers, vendors, and Amazon itself. (1.) Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 930 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2019), vacated and reh'g granted by 936 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. (2.) See Strict Products Liability, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)......
-
Product-related Privity, Preemption, and the Internet Marketplace
...(Fed. Cir. 2017); Oberdorf, 295 F. Supp. 3d at 501; 19. Appeal granted, 129 N.E.3d 461 (Ohio 2019). 20. Aff'd in part and vacated in part, 930 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2019), vacated, 936 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2019) (en banc), question certified, ___ F. App'x. ___, 2020 WL 3023064 (3d Cir. June 2, 202......