219 F. Supp. 3d 533
D. Maryland2016Background
- McDonald bought two LG rechargeable batteries via Amazon from third‑party seller Safetymind; one allegedly exploded in his pocket and caused burns.
- He sued LG and Amazon in Maryland state court asserting products liability (against LG) and three claims against Amazon: negligent failure to warn (Count V), negligence (Count VI), and breach of implied warranty (Count VII).
- Amazon removed the case to federal court based on diversity and moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The Complaint alleges the batteries were designed/manufactured/sold by LG and sold/shipped to McDonald by Safetymind; it pleads Amazon only as the online platform enabling the sale.
- The Court accepted the Complaint’s allegations for purposes of the motion, reviewed Section 230 immunity, Maryland products‑liability and UCC principles, and evaluated whether the Complaint sufficiently attributed the defect and duties to Amazon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 230 bars the negligent‑failure‑to‑warn claim | McDonald: Section 230 protects only content; Amazon can be liable for selling/guaranteeing defective products | Amazon: Section 230 immunizes websites from claims based on third‑party content/postings | Held: Section 230 bars Count V (negligent failure to warn); claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Amazon is liable in negligence for the defective product | McDonald: Amazon was intimately involved (payment processing, fees, possible fulfillment) and discovery may show more involvement | Amazon: Complaint pleads that Safetymind sold and shipped the battery; Amazon was merely a platform, so no duty or attribution | Held: Negligence claim (Count VI) fails because plaintiff did not allege Amazon was the seller/attributable source of defect; dismissed |
| Whether Amazon breached an implied warranty | McDonald: Amazon’s role and guarantees (e.g., A-to-Z) render it liable | Amazon: Under Maryland UCC, implied warranty applies only to a ‘‘seller’’/merchant; platform role does not make Amazon a merchant of that good | Held: Breach of implied warranty (Count VII) fails; dismissed |
| Whether plaintiff may rely on assertions in briefing or amend complaint to add Amazon’s direct involvement | McDonald: Brief alleges additional factual bases (fulfillment, shipping, guarantees) and requests discovery | Amazon: Dismissal based on the Complaint’s allegations; briefs cannot amend the Complaint | Held: Court evaluates only the Complaint; plaintiff bound by its allegations and cannot amend via brief; dismissal affirmed (Section 230 bar precludes amendment on Count V) |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (Section 230 grants immunity for claims treating interactive services as the publisher of third‑party content)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (three‑part test for Section 230 immunity and limits where service acts as content provider)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (Section 230 does not bar a failure‑to‑warn claim based on the defendant’s independent knowledge about third‑party dangers)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (limits on Section 230 where site contributes to development of unlawful content)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)