
Amazon Is Strictly Liable for 3rd Party Marketplace Items - tomcam
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/09/amazon-is-strictly-liable-for-marketplace-items-reinforcing-that-online-marketplaces-are-doomed-bolger-v-amazon.htm
======
patrickhogan1
Without arguing the merits of distributor liability or supply chain liability.

Why should Amazon not bear the same responsibility as a mostly physical
retailer (eg Walmart - who currently is liable for products it sells -
assuming a retail store transaction)?

This ruling follows the same logic as sales tax. In 2020 there is no reason to
argue an online transaction should receive special treatment from an in-person
transaction considering a sale of the same product to the same consumer.

~~~
hansvm
> Why should Amazon not bear the same responsibility as a mostly physical
> retailer

The typical argument is that they're more akin to a farmers market, bringing
buying and sellers together and facilitating a transaction, and most legal
disputes should be handled between the parties who actually bought and sold
items. It's not an online vs in-person distinction.

The key point of the ruling seems to be that Amazon can't claim to be a
neutral arbiter while simultaneously branding itself to consumers like an
online counterpart to a physical retailer (as opposed to, e.g., eBay where
it's abundantly obvious that you're interacting with some third party) and
while substantially restricting the activities of and information available to
sellers such that they are sellers in name only and don't actually have a
relationship with the end consumer.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Except there is no co-mingling in farmers markets.

~~~
hansvm
Well sure. I'm not taking Amazon's side on this, just trying to explain from
my perspective why it's not really an online vs physical issue like the
grandparent comment suggested. Other factors (I listed a couple; co-mingling
also matters) are the points of contention.

~~~
paulryanrogers
I'd say the co-mingling makes Amazon more than just an intermediary,
regardless of whether customers are in person or online.

------
londons_explore
If this ruling stands, I could imagine them just shutting the marketplace down
entirely.

~~~
rasz
Shutting down would mean regulation worked. Sadly I expect the opposite,
something as brazen-faced as establishing a fake insurance company in one of
tax heavens like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Park)

------
MichaelZuo
Potentially huge. If amazon decides to appeal, which they almost certainly
will do, and if the 9th circuit and supreme court declines to hear the appeal,
or upholds the verdict, then this would be precedent setting.

Online retailing will turn into physical retailing except in cyberspace. In
this sort of environment then Amazon will likely have no competitive advantage
over Walmart, or any other big retailer who sets up a good site, on the retail
side. And Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly on smart tech/marketing/strategy/etc.
folks either.

No wonder they’re putting so much effort into other projects, it’s doubtful
they’ll ever turn a significant profit on their core business in this future
environment. The margins will stay near zero.

------
verall
This guy is a professor? He talks like he's very inexperienced in the law.
Especially:

> This kind of stuff makes my head hurt, because the court seems to imply that
> Amazon could avoid liability by taking fewer steps to protect consumer
> safety.

Uh, obviously? It's a list of heuristics to separate a flea market from a
walmart. Amazon is obviously a walmart. Ebay works pretty hard to be
transparent about being a flea market slash auctioneer for this reason, Amazon
is just trying to bully the state Gov.

