3 ms·

The court was careful to only make the determination that Amazon was a “seller” in this specific instance because of Amazon’s role in the sale. From the opinio

The court was careful to only make the determination that Amazon was a “seller” in this specific instance because of Amazon’s role in the sale. From the opinion[1]: > Our decision, guided by Pennsylvania law, is limited to the question of whether Amazon is a “seller” based on its role in effectuating sales of physical products offered by third-party vendors. We express no view, for example, on whether other companies providing online marketplaces are considered “sellers.” There were four factors the court used to help determine that Amazon was a “seller” (starting on page 12 of the opinion) and they all went against Amazon. [1] https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181041p.pdf https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181041p.pdf

DreamSpinner 7y ago
Thankyou for the link - it's quite interesting. Here's the section: In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that courts later tasked with determining whether an actor is a “seller” should consider whether the following four factors apply: (1) Whether the actor is the “only member of the marketing chain available to the injured plaintiff for redress”; (2) Whether “imposition of strict liability upon the [actor] serves as an incentive to safety”; (3) Whether the actor is “in a better position than the consumer to prevent the circulation of defective products”; and (4) Whether “[t]he [actor] can distribute the cost of compensating for injuries resulting from defects by charging for it in his business, i.e., by adjustment of the rental terms.”
- elliekelly 7y ago
  What’s interesting too is the court could have concluded their reasoning with this four-factor analysis but then the ruling would most certainly be limited to Pennsylvania. So while they explicitly said they aren’t making the determination for marketplaces other than Amazon they do go through the effort in Section B (page 21) to lay out additional rationale/legal justification that brings Amazon’s actions within the meaning of “seller” in other jurisdictions as well.

DreamSpinner 7y ago

Thankyou for the link - it's quite interesting. Here's the section: In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that courts later tasked with determining whether an actor is a “seller” should consider whether the following four factors apply: (1) Whether the actor is the “only member of the marketing chain available to the injured plaintiff for redress”; (2) Whether “imposition of strict liability upon the [actor] serves as an incentive to safety”; (3) Whether the actor is “in a better position than the consumer to prevent the circulation of defective products”; and (4) Whether “[t]he [actor] can distribute the cost of compensating for injuries resulting from defects by charging for it in his business, i.e., by adjustment of the rental terms.”

elliekelly 7y ago
What’s interesting too is the court could have concluded their reasoning with this four-factor analysis but then the ruling would most certainly be limited to Pennsylvania. So while they explicitly said they aren’t making the determination for marketplaces other than Amazon they do go through the effort in Section B (page 21) to lay out additional rationale/legal justification that brings Amazon’s actions within the meaning of “seller” in other jurisdictions as well.