930 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2019)
In December 2014, Heather Oberdorf purchased a dog collar from third-party vendor The Furry Gang on Amazon's website.1 The Furry Gang shipped the product directly from Nevada to Oberdorf.2 On January 12, 2015, the D-ring on the collar broke while Oberdorf was walking her dog Sadie.3 The retractable leash recoiled into Oberdorf's eyeglasses, injuring her and permanently blinding her in her left eye.4
Oberdorf filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.5 She brought claims for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.6 The District Court granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment.7 It held that Amazon is not a seller under Pennsylvania law and that the claims are barred by the CDA.8
Oberdorf appealed. The Third Circuit exercised appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.9 The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, viewing facts in the light most favorable to Oberdorf.10
Amazon operates an online marketplace under the Services Business Solutions Agreement.11 Third-party vendors set prices and shipping methods and provide product information.12 Amazon formats listings, collects payments, and charges fees.13 The Furry Gang account has been inactive since May 2016, and neither party could locate the vendor after the incident.14
Whether Amazon is a seller under Pennsylvania strict products liability law for products sold by third-party vendors through its online marketplace?15
Pennsylvania has adopted section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which imposes strict liability on sellers of defective products.16 In the absence of a controlling decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court predicts how that court would decide the issue.17 The court considers the four factors from Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co, Inc.18
Yes. The purchase was made through Amazon's online marketplace governed by the Services Business Solutions Agreement.19 Amazon formatted the listing, collected the payment, and charged fees for its services. The Furry Gang account has been inactive since May 2016, and neither Oberdorf nor Amazon could locate the vendor after the incident.
This makes Amazon the only member of the marketing chain available for redress under factor (1).20 Amazon exerts substantial control over third-party vendors through the Agreement by retaining the right to suspend listings, withhold payments, and terminate services.21 This would serve as an incentive to safety under factor (2).22 Amazon is in a better position than the consumer to prevent circulation of defective products because it formats listings, collects customer feedback, and can remove unsafe products from its website under factor (3).23
Amazon can distribute the cost by adjusting commission-based fees and has indemnification provisions in the Agreement under factor (4).24 All four factors weigh in favor of imposing strict liability on Amazon as a seller.25
Amazon is a seller under Pennsylvania strict products liability law for products sold by third-party vendors through its online marketplace.26
Related opinions on this issue
Scirica dissents from the majority's disposition of the claims not barred by the CDA.27 He argues that well-settled Pennsylvania products liability law precludes treating Amazon as a seller strictly liable for any injuries caused by the defective Furry Gang collar.28 A seller in Pennsylvania is almost always an actor who transfers ownership from itself to the customer.29
Amazon does not do this for Marketplace sellers like The Furry Gang.30 Scirica would affirm the District Court's dismissal of those claims.31
Whether Oberdorf's claims against Amazon are barred by the Communications Decency Act because they seek to hold Amazon liable for its role as a publisher of third-party content?32
The CDA provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).33 The CDA preempts any state law cause of action that is inconsistent with this provision.34
No. Oberdorf's claims are based on Amazon's own conduct in designing its platform, facilitating the sale, and profiting from the transaction rather than on Amazon's publication of information provided by the seller.35 Amazon processes payments, handles customer service, provides fulfillment services, and collects fees. These are activities in the sales process not barred by the CDA.36 However, to the extent the claims rely on failure to provide adequate warnings, those are barred as they fall within the publisher's editorial function.37
Oberdorf's claims against Amazon are not barred by the Communications Decency Act except to the extent they rely on a failure to warn theory.38
Related opinions on this issue
In concurring, Circuit Judge Scirica endorses the majority's careful distinction under the Communications Decency Act between claims that treat Amazon as a publisher of third-party content and those that do not.39 He agrees that the CDA does not immunize Amazon from liability for its own conduct in facilitating sales through its marketplace platform. At the same time, Scirica accepts that failure-to-warn allegations fall within the editorial functions protected by the statute.
This position aligns with the court's ultimate disposition remanding the non-warning claims for further proceedings.