930 F.3d 415
6th Cir.2019Background
- In Nov. 2015 Megan Fox purchased a FITURBO F1 hoverboard through Amazon's online marketplace; the listed seller was a third party (W2M/W-Deals) and the manufacturer is unknown.
- The hoverboard contained a lithium‑ion battery that later ignited, causing a house fire that injured the family and destroyed their home; the battery fire was undisputedly the cause.
- Amazon operated a Fulfillment‑by‑Amazon (FBA) program, controlled buyer communications, sent the purchase receipt from an amazon.com address, and had records showing extensive fulfillment activity for third‑party sellers, though records also identified W‑Deals as the fulfiller for this order.
- After media reports of hoverboard fires, Amazon investigated, identified multiple complaints, stopped all hoverboard sales on Dec. 11, 2015, and on Dec. 12, 2015 emailed purchasers a “Product Safety Notification” that gave general lithium‑ion safety tips but did not disclose its investigation results, the risk of fire/explosion, or that it had ceased sales.
- Plaintiffs sued Amazon (and W2M) under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA), Tennessee tort law (failure to warn/undertaking), and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); the district court granted summary judgment to Amazon on all claims; Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon is a "seller" under the TPLA | Amazon effectively sold the hoverboard because it controlled many aspects of the transaction (payments, communications, fulfillment features) | Amazon never took title and did not exercise sufficient control to be a seller | Amazon is not a TPLA "seller"; affirm summary judgment for Amazon on the TPLA claim |
| Whether Amazon assumed a duty by sending the Dec. 12 safety email (tort/undertaking) | The email was an undertaking to warn purchasers; Amazon breached that duty by omitting material info, causing reliance and harm | Amazon argued no duty or no causation from the email | Amazon assumed a duty under Restatement §§323/324A by sending the email; genuine factual disputes exist on breach and causation — reverse dismissal and remand |
| Whether Amazon violated the TCPA by causing confusion about product source via seller "friendly names" | Amazon's seller naming policy caused Megan Fox to believe Amazon was the seller and induced the purchase | Plaintiffs failed to show causation — that Fox would not have bought but for the friendly name | No genuine fact dispute on causation shown; affirm dismissal of TCPA claim |
| Whether CDA § 230 immunity applies (as to claims other than the Dec. 12 email) | Plaintiffs: not raised as a bar to the email‑based tort claim | Amazon: many claims rest on content contributed by third‑party sellers and would be protected | Court did not decide § 230 immunity for TPLA/TCPA (unnecessary); Amazon conceded § 230 did not bar the Dec. 12 email tort claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Penley v. Honda Motor Co., 31 S.W.3d 181 (Tenn. 2000) (statutory interpretation starts with ordinary meaning of language)
- Baker v. Promark Prods. West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844 (Tenn. 1985) (TPLA "seller" includes lessor/bailor; remedies beyond strict buyer‑seller relationship)
- Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996) (TPLA remedial purpose: injured consumer may sue who is most likely to compensate)
- Whitehead v. Toyota Motor Corp., 897 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1995) (identifying operative provisions of the TPLA)
- Grogan v. Uggla, 535 S.W.3d 864 (Tenn. 2017) (assumption‑of‑duty analysis under Restatement §§323 and 324A governs Tennessee law)
- Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005) (applying § 324A to third‑party harms where defendant undertook protective activity)