Latest News
View AllAs I recently wrote, last year, in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit held that Snap—the maker of Snapchat—could potentially be held liable under a negligent design theory for multiple deaths caused by…
continue readingLast year, in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit held that Snap—the maker of the app Snapchat—could potentially be held liable under a negligent design theory for multiple deaths caused by a driver…
continue readingIn another loss for Amazon, a California court of appeal has held that Amazon can be liable for violations of California’s Proposition 65 for mercury-containing skin lightening creams sold on Amazon’s marketplace. The decision, Lee v Amazon, can be found…
continue readingLate last year, Amazon surpassed Walmart as the world’s largest retailer. And while Amazon continues to resist being characterized as a “retailer,” a growing number of people injured by defective or dangerous products sold through Amazon contend otherwise and are…
continue readingAs Amazon likes to point out, select courts around the country have held that Amazon can’t be held strictly liable for harms caused by products sold on its “marketplace” if the product is not sold directly by Amazon. Texas is…
continue readingWelcome to ‘E-commerce Liability’ by CaseyGerry, a site dedicated to the practice area of product liability and consumer protection in the digital age.
LEARN MOREFeatured
View AllAs I recently wrote, last year, in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit held that Snap—the maker of Snapchat—could potentially be held liable under a negligent design theory for multiple deaths caused by…
continue readingLast year, in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit held that Snap—the maker of the app Snapchat—could potentially be held liable under a negligent design theory for multiple deaths caused by a driver…
continue readingIn another loss for Amazon, a California court of appeal has held that Amazon can be liable for violations of California’s Proposition 65 for mercury-containing skin lightening creams sold on Amazon’s marketplace. The decision, Lee v Amazon, can be found…
continue readingLate last year, Amazon surpassed Walmart as the world’s largest retailer. And while Amazon continues to resist being characterized as a “retailer,” a growing number of people injured by defective or dangerous products sold through Amazon contend otherwise and are…
continue readingAs Amazon likes to point out, select courts around the country have held that Amazon can’t be held strictly liable for harms caused by products sold on its “marketplace” if the product is not sold directly by Amazon. Texas is…
continue readingby Jeremy Robinson Last summer, I wrote about an administrative enforcement action brought by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) relating to several hazardous products being sold through Amazon’s Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program. As I mentioned then, one of…
continue readingAttorney Jeremy Robinson
Robinson argued Amazon should be strictly liable for injuries caused by products sold on its marketplace—in this case, a defective laptop battery made in China that badly burned plaintiff Angela Bolger—just like any other retailer. Even though Amazon had successfully defeated that argument numerous times in numerous cases all over the country, the San Diego-based Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division One sided with Robinson and ruled that Amazon can be held strictly liable for defective products purchased through its virtual marketplace. This ruling marks the first time a state appellate court anywhere in the country has ruled against Amazon on this issue, and it is the only published appellate decision in the nation holding Amazon strictly liable.
