380 F. Supp. 3d 766
E.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiffs David and Annette Garber bought a hoverboard on Amazon.com from a third‑party seller identified as "Libert00" (Shenzhen Gangshen). The hoverboard later self‑ignited and damaged their home.
- Amazon operated the online marketplace; Shenzhen listed, priced, owned, shipped, and transferred title of the hoverboard; Amazon processed payment and received a sales commission.
- Amazon required third‑party sellers to accept its Business Solutions Agreement (BSA) and could require proof of compliance with safety standards; Amazon later suspended hoverboard listings pending proof of compliance and posted consumer warnings in December 2015.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court for strict products liability and negligence; Amazon removed the case and moved for summary judgment in federal court on diversity grounds.
- The Garbers argued Amazon was a "co‑seller" (strict liability) and that Amazon had a post‑sale duty to warn or voluntarily undertook a duty to warn (negligence). Amazon argued it was merely a marketplace provider outside the distributive chain and alternatively invoked CDA §230 (not reached).
- The court found the Garbers failed to create a genuine factual dispute that Amazon was a seller or otherwise so integrally involved as to be strictly liable, and found no duty owed by Amazon on the negligence theory; summary judgment for Amazon granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon is a "seller" (strict products liability) | Amazon and Shenzhen were "co‑sellers;" Amazon controlled terms, profited via commission, and marketplace presentation made buyers think they bought from Amazon | Amazon merely provided an online marketplace and did not manufacture, own, possess, ship, or transfer title to the hoverboard | Amazon was not a seller; facts show Shenzhen owned, listed, priced, shipped, and transferred title—Amazon not part of distributive chain |
| Whether strict liability should extend to marketplace providers outside the distributive chain | Even if not a formal seller, Amazon participated in marketing/distribution and profited, so strict liability should apply under Hebel/Connelly line | Amazon did not participate in manufacture, marketing, packaging, labeling, or distribution in a way that would make it integrally involved; commission alone insufficient | Illinois Supreme Court would likely not extend strict liability to Amazon; plaintiffs failed to meet Hebel factors |
| Whether Amazon owed a post‑sale duty to warn (negligence) | Amazon had continuing/voluntary duty to warn after learning of hoverboard fire risk from its investigation and consumer reports | Any continuing duty to warn is limited to manufacturers; plaintiffs offer no evidence Amazon voluntarily assumed or breached such a duty to them | No duty established as a matter of law; negligence claim fails |
| Evidentiary/pleading sufficiency at summary judgment | Garbers contend factual disputes exist (e.g., buyer perception) | Amazon points to plaintiffs' failure to cite admissible evidence in LR 56.1 responses; undisputed facts taken as admitted | Many Garber denials lacked evidentiary support and were deemed admitted; court disregarded facts not presented in compliant LR 56.1 statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill.2d 247 (Ill. 2007) (Illinois follows Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A for strict products liability)
- Hammond v. N. Am. Asbestos Corp., 97 Ill.2d 195 (Ill. 1983) (distributive‑chain participants may be strictly liable where their role in marketing supports it)
- Connelly v. Uniroyal, Inc., 75 Ill.2d 393 (Ill. 1979) (strict liability can extend beyond the distributive chain in narrow circumstances)
- Hebel v. Sherman Equip., 92 Ill.2d 368 (Ill. 1982) (articulates factors for extending strict liability to parties outside the chain)
- Graham v. Bostrom Seating, Inc., 398 Ill.App.3d 302 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (evidence of purchase/sale paperwork can create a factual dispute on seller status)
- Bittler v. White & Co., 203 Ill.App.3d 26 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (exclusive sales relationships and commissions can support extension of strict liability)
- Alvarez v. Koby Machinery Co., Ltd., 163 Ill.App.3d 711 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (mere broker/connector role without profit or control is insufficient for strict liability)
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 955 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. 2011) (manufacturer's post‑sale duty to warn is limited and generally does not extend to nonmanufacturers)
- Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc., 325 F.Supp.3d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (survey of decisions finding Amazon not a seller for strict liability purposes)
- Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., 295 F.Supp.3d 496 (M.D. Pa. 2017) (similar conclusion that Amazon is not a seller on its marketplace)