> 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

> 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.