3 ms·

Without arguing the merits of distributor liability or supply chain liability. Why should Amazon not bear the same responsibility as a mostly physical retailer

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 6y ago
> 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 6y ago
  Except there is no co-mingling in farmers markets.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      I'd say the co-mingling makes Amazon more than just an intermediary, regardless of whether customers are in person or online.

hansvm 6y ago

> 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 6y ago
Except there is no co-mingling in farmers markets.
- hansvm 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    I'd say the co-mingling makes Amazon more than just an intermediary, regardless of whether customers are in person or online.