Erie Insurance Company v. Amazon.com, Inc.
925 F.3d 135
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- Purchaser Cao bought an LED headlamp on Amazon’s website listed as “sold by: Dream Light” and “Fulfilled by: Amazon”; Dream Light shipped inventory to Amazon’s warehouse and Amazon packaged/shipped the order.
- The headlamp allegedly ignited the recipient’s house; Erie Insurance (subrogee) paid $313,166.57 and sued Amazon for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability.
- District court granted summary judgment to Amazon, holding Amazon was not the seller and was immune under the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). Erie appealed.
- Fourth Circuit: reversed the § 230 immunity ruling (claims are not based on publication of third‑party content) but affirmed that Amazon was not a “seller” under Maryland law in these facts.
- Court reasoned Maryland seller liability attaches to parties who transfer title for a price; here Dream Light retained title and Amazon acted as a bailee/fulfillment agent, not a title‑holding seller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 230(c)(1) immunizes Amazon | Erie: claims are for Amazon’s own acts as a seller/distributor, not claims about third‑party content, so § 230 does not apply | Amazon: its control over listing content and user experience renders Dream Light’s listing third‑party content, so § 230 bars suit | Reversed district court: § 230 immunity does not apply because Erie’s claims are products‑liability based, not claims about publisher/speaker conduct |
| Whether Amazon was a "seller" under Maryland products‑liability law | Erie: Amazon’s extensive role (website, payment collection, warehousing, packaging, shipping, remittance) effectively made it the seller | Amazon: Dream Light set price, retained title, paid Amazon for fulfillment, and the listing expressly identified Dream Light as seller | Affirmed: Amazon was not the seller; seller liability follows title transfer and Dream Light retained title |
| Whether Amazon was an "entrustee" under UCC § 2‑403, making it able to transfer title | Erie: entrustment doctrine could make Amazon able to transfer title and thus treated as seller | Amazon: § 2‑403 allows a merchant bailee to pass entruster’s title to a buyer in ordinary course but does not make the bailee the seller or impose products liability on it | Held: § 2‑403 does not render Amazon a seller or create seller liability here; it protects buyers, not impose liability on entrustees |
| Whether delivery by Amazon (or on its instructions) meant title passed on delivery under UCC § 2‑401 | Erie: because Amazon arranged delivery, title passed when delivered and therefore Amazon was the seller | Amazon: delivery by carrier (UPS) does not equate to title transfer to Amazon; § 2‑401 determines timing of title passing, not identity of seller | Held: Delivery timing rule does not convert a facilitator/shipper into the title‑holding seller; Dream Light remained seller |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (§ 230 bars suits treating service providers as publishers/speakers of third‑party content)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (policy rationale and scope of § 230 immunity)
- Laing v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 949 A.2d 26 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (products‑liability elements require defect, attribution to seller, and causation)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 779 A.2d 362 (Md. 2001) (title/defect timing for implied‑warranty and strict liability claims)
- Phipps v. Gen. Motors Corp., 363 A.2d 955 (Md. 1976) (adoption of Restatement § 402A strict liability principles)
- Owens‑Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 601 A.2d 633 (Md. 1992) (scope of strict liability and treatment of parties in chain of distribution)
- Jones v. State, 498 A.2d 622 (Md. 1985) (possession can be distinct from title)
- Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., 562 A.2d 279 (Pa. 1989) (auctioneers/bailees are not sellers)