Erie Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-02679-RWT) (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Maryland law, an online marketplace that provides fulfillment services for a third-party vendor is not considered a 'seller' for products liability purposes if it does not hold title to the goods at any point in the transaction.
Facts:
- Trung Cao purchased an LED headlamp on Amazon.com.
- The product listing for the headlamp stated that it was 'sold by: Dream Light' and 'Fulfilled by: Amazon.'
- Dream Light, the third-party vendor, set the product's price, created the content for the product description, and shipped its inventory of headlamps to an Amazon warehouse for storage.
- Under its 'fulfillment' program, Amazon stored Dream Light's product, and upon receiving Cao's order, packaged the headlamp and arranged for its shipment via UPS.
- Amazon collected payment directly from Cao, deducted its fees, and remitted the remaining balance to Dream Light.
- Cao gave the headlamp as a gift to his friends, the Nguyens.
- The headlamp allegedly malfunctioned from a defective battery, igniting a fire that caused over $300,000 in damages to the Nguyens' home.
Procedural Posture:
- Erie Insurance Company, as subrogee, sued Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- Erie asserted claims of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability.
- Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Amazon, holding that it was not a 'seller' under Maryland law and was also immune from suit under the Communications Decency Act.
- Erie Insurance Company (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Amazon.com, Inc. as the appellee.
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 that provides fulfillment services, such as storing, packaging, and shipping a product for a third-party vendor, qualify as a 'seller' under Maryland products liability law, even if it never holds title to the product?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Niemeyer
No. An online marketplace that provides fulfillment services for a third-party vendor is not a 'seller' subject to products liability under Maryland law because it does not hold or pass title to the goods. Maryland products liability law, whether based on negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, imposes liability on 'sellers.' The court determined that the ordinary and legal definition of a 'seller,' as defined in Maryland's Uniform Commercial Code, is a person who transfers title to goods for a price. In this transaction, Dream Light held title to the headlamp until it was transferred to the purchaser, Cao. Amazon merely provided services—such as storage, payment processing, and shipping logistics—akin to a bailee, broker, or auctioneer, none of whom take title to the goods they facilitate the sale of. The court rejected the argument that Amazon was a 'distributor' or 'entrustee' in a manner that would confer seller status, as those roles do not inherently involve holding title.
Concurring - Judge Motz
No. While existing Maryland law, which defines a 'seller' based on the transfer of title, compels the conclusion that Amazon is not liable, this legal framework is ill-suited for the modern e-commerce landscape. Amazon's business model disrupts the traditional supply chain by enabling foreign or otherwise judgment-proof manufacturers to sell directly to consumers, with Amazon facilitating every aspect of the transaction except for holding title. This structure allows Amazon to avoid liability for dangerous products, potentially leaving injured consumers without recourse. Although a federal court must apply state law as it exists, Maryland's courts or legislature may be justified in reconsidering the common law definition of 'seller' in light of the 'changed conditions of modern life.'
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that, under traditional title-based definitions of a 'seller,' e-commerce platforms like Amazon can structure their fulfillment services to avoid products liability for third-party sales. By ensuring they never take title to the goods, these platforms act as service providers rather than sellers, creating a potential gap in consumer protection when the actual third-party seller is remote, insolvent, or unidentifiable. The concurring opinion explicitly highlights this tension between established legal doctrine and the economic realities of modern online marketplaces, suggesting that state courts or legislatures may need to adapt liability rules to address the unique role these platforms play in the stream of commerce.
Unlock the full brief for Erie Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc.