Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC
53 Cal.App.5th 1095, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 911 (2020), as modified on denial of reh'g (Sept. 9, 2020), review denied (Nov. 10, 2020), cert. denied sub nom. Amazon.com, LLC v. Bolger (U.S. May 17, 2021) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California's strict products liability doctrine applies to online marketplaces like Amazon when they are an integral part of the vertical distribution chain, accepting orders, processing payments, storing, and shipping third-party products, thereby fulfilling the policies of consumer protection, product safety incentives, and cost allocation.
Facts:
- Angela Bolger purchased a replacement laptop battery from the Amazon website after searching for it online.
- The Amazon listing identified the seller as "E-Life," a fictitious name used by Lenoge Technology (HK) Ltd. (Lenoge).
- Amazon charged Bolger for the $12.30 purchase, retrieved the laptop battery from its location in an Amazon warehouse, prepared it for shipment in Amazon-branded packaging, and sent it to Bolger via free two-day shipping as she was an Amazon Prime member.
- Throughout the purchasing process, Bolger had no direct contact with Lenoge and believed Amazon sold her the battery.
- Several months later, while Bolger was using her laptop, the replacement battery exploded, causing her to suffer severe burns that resulted in two weeks of hospitalization.
- The month after Bolger's purchase, Amazon suspended Lenoge's selling privileges due to safety reports on its laptop batteries and Lenoge's failure to respond to Amazon's requests for documentation, eventually blocking its account permanently.
- Bolger's lawsuit was the first safety report Amazon received for her specific battery model; Amazon subsequently "suppressed" the listing and purged existing inventory.
- Three months after Bolger filed her complaint, Amazon sent her an email warning her about the battery's fire hazard, advising disposal, and crediting her Amazon account for the purchase price.
Procedural Posture:
- Angela Bolger sued Amazon.com, LLC, Lenoge Technology (HK) Ltd. (Lenoge), and several other defendants in the Superior Court of San Diego County, alleging causes of action including strict products liability, negligent products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and negligence/negligent undertaking.
- Lenoge was served but did not appear, leading the trial court to enter its default.
- Amazon moved for summary judgment, arguing it was an online marketplace and service provider, not a distributor, manufacturer, or seller, and therefore not subject to strict products liability or similar tort theories, and also claimed immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230.
- The trial court granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment, agreeing that Amazon was not strictly liable and finding Bolger's other claims lacked merit.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Amazon.
- Angela Bolger appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an online marketplace operating a "Fulfilled by Amazon" (FBA) program, which stores, packages, and ships third-party seller products, accepts payments, and controls the customer relationship, qualify as an "integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise" such that it can be held strictly liable for defects in those products?
Opinions:
Majority - Guerrero, J.
Yes, an online marketplace operating a "Fulfilled by Amazon" (FBA) program can be held strictly liable for defects in third-party products because it acts as an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise, fulfilling the core policies of the doctrine. The court found that Amazon's deep involvement in the transaction, from creating the sales environment and attracting customers to storing, taking possession of, packaging, and shipping the product, makes it a direct link in the chain of distribution. The court's reasoning relied on the established principles of strict products liability in California, which extends beyond manufacturers to all entities integral to the vertical distribution of consumer goods, including retailers and distributors (citing Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. and Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.). The court emphasized three policy considerations: (1) Amazon, like conventional retailers, may be the only member of the distribution chain reasonably available to an injured plaintiff, especially with foreign third-party sellers; (2) Amazon is in a strong position to influence product safety and exert pressure on third-party sellers through its extensive monitoring, contractual requirements (like indemnification and insurance), and ability to suspend sellers; and (3) Amazon can adjust the costs of liability between itself and third-party sellers through its fee structure and contractual agreements. The court distinguished Amazon's role from that of auctioneers or finance lessors, arguing Amazon's involvement was far more substantial and not merely "random and accidental." It rejected Amazon's argument that strict liability should only apply to traditional "sellers" or "distributors" based on dictionary definitions, reaffirming that California strict liability doctrine cuts through such technicalities to achieve its policy goals (Price v. Shell Oil Co.). Furthermore, the court held that 47 U.S.C. § 230 (CDA immunity) does not shield Amazon from strict products liability claims because these claims are based on Amazon's own conduct in the distribution chain, not on its role as a publisher or speaker of third-party content (Erie Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc.; State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc.).
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of strict products liability in California to encompass online marketplaces that actively participate in the fulfillment and transaction process of third-party products. It moves beyond traditional definitions of "seller" or "distributor" to focus on the functional role an entity plays in bringing a product to market, especially where that entity benefits substantially from the transaction and controls key aspects of the distribution. This ruling sets an important precedent for consumer protection in the e-commerce era, potentially impacting how online platforms structure their relationships with third-party sellers and encouraging greater scrutiny of product safety on their sites. It also clarifies that CDA immunity does not extend to an online platform's operational role in the physical distribution of goods.
