930 F.3d 136
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Heather Oberdorf purchased a dog collar from a third‑party vendor (The Furry Gang) via Amazon Marketplace; the collar’s D‑ring broke and a recoiling leash blinded her in one eye.
- The Furry Gang listed and shipped the product directly to Oberdorf; the vendor later could not be located or served.
- Oberdorf sued Amazon for strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and related claims; District Court granted Amazon summary judgment.
- District Court held Amazon not a "seller" under Pennsylvania strict liability law and that Oberdorf’s claims were barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
- Third Circuit applied Pennsylvania law to the § 402A "seller" question and federal law to the CDA issue, reversing in part and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon is a "seller" subject to strict products liability under Pa. law | Oberdorf: Amazon exerts sufficient control over listings, payments, and vendor relations to be a seller under § 402A | Amazon: It is merely a marketplace/agent for third‑party vendors and does not transfer title or possess goods, so not a "seller" | Amazon is a "seller" under Pennsylvania law for third‑party sales on its marketplace; § 402A applies |
| Application of Musser/Francioni factors to Amazon | Oberdorf: Factors (only available defendant, incentive to safety, superior ability to police, ability to spread costs) favor treating Amazon as a seller | Amazon: Musser/Francioni weigh against liability; it is tangential like an auctioneer and sellers remain reachable | All four Musser/Francioni factors weigh for imposing strict liability on Amazon in this context |
| Whether § 230(c)(1) of the CDA bars Oberdorf's claims against Amazon | Oberdorf: Claims are based on Amazon’s direct participation in sales and distribution, not merely publishing third‑party content | Amazon: Claims attack Amazon’s role as publisher of third‑party listings and failure to police/edit content, so CDA immunizes it | CDA does not bar claims based on Amazon’s direct sales/distribution activities; but failure‑to‑warn claims premised on editing website content are barred |
| Procedural disposition | Oberdorf: District Court erred by entering summary judgment for Amazon on all claims | Amazon: District Court properly dismissed under state products law and § 230 | Court affirms dismissal only of failure‑to‑warn claims under § 230; vacates remainder of summary judgment and remands for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., Inc., 562 A.2d 279 (Pa. 1989) (articulates four‑factor test for extending § 402A liability beyond traditional sellers)
- Hoffman v. Loos & Dilworth, Inc., 452 A.2d 1349 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982) (manufacturer’s representative/sales agent may be a "seller" under § 402A despite not taking title)
- Francioni v. Gibsonia Truck Corp., 372 A.2d 736 (Pa. 1977) (factors for imposing strict liability on nontraditional suppliers)
- Nath v. National Equipment Leasing Corp., 439 A.2d 633 (Pa. 1981) (limits on applying strict liability to tangential participants)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (framework for adopting Restatement provisions consistent with Pennsylvania law)
- Green v. America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) (CDA § 230 bars claims treating ISP as publisher for editorial decisions)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (CDA does not necessarily bar non‑editorial claims like promissory estoppel)
- Erie Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 925 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2019) (CDA immunity does not shield a defendant when sued as a seller of a defective product)