NOCO Co. v. OJ Com., LLC, 35 F.4th 475

NOCO manufactures battery chargers and permits authorized resellers under written agreements; it discovered OJ Commerce (OJC) selling NOCO products on Amazon without authorization and sent complaints to Amazon.
From Oct 2019–Jan 2020 NOCO filed multiple Amazon anti‑counterfeiting reports; Amazon sent warnings and removed listings, requesting proof of authenticity/authorization.
In Jan 2020 a separate manufacturer, Emson, also complained to Amazon about OJC (patent infringement); Amazon later sent a final warning and deactivated OJC’s account; the account was restored two days later.
OJC counterclaimed against NOCO for defamation, tortious interference, and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, arguing NOCO’s complaints caused the suspension.
The district court granted summary judgment for NOCO, holding OJC failed to prove NOCO was the proximate cause of its injury; OJC appealed only its counterclaims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NOCO’s complaints were the proximate cause of OJC’s account deactivation	NOCO’s complaints (alone or in combination) led Amazon to suspend OJC, causing damages	Emson’s complaint, Amazon’s independent investigation, and OJC’s failure to provide adequate documentation were intervening superseding causes	NOCO not the proximate cause; summary judgment for NOCO affirmed
Whether third‑party complaints (Emson) supersede causation	Emson’s complaint is irrelevant; NOCO’s reports were sufficient to cause suspension	Emson’s independent complaint was an efficient, unforeseeable cause that could have produced the suspension on its own	Emson’s complaint was a superseding cause relieving NOCO of liability
Whether Amazon’s independent investigation severs causation	Amazon merely acted on NOCO’s reports; NOCO should be liable for consequences	Amazon conducted its own investigation and made an independent decision to deactivate, breaking the causal chain	Amazon’s independent review was an intervening cause severing liability for NOCO
Whether OJC’s own conduct bars proximate cause	OJC could not have prevented suspension despite attempts to comply	OJC failed to provide adequate proof or a valid plan of action—its actions could have prevented the harm and thus superseded NOCO’s role	OJC’s failure to produce sufficient documentation was a superseding cause that defeats proximate cause

Aiken v. Indus. Comm’n, 53 N.E.2d 1018 (Ohio 1944) (defines proximate cause as a natural, continuous sequence unbroken by independent causes)
Johnson v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 540 N.E.2d 1370 (Ohio 1989) (explains proximate cause as scope of liability and limits on responsibility)
Cascone v. Herb Kay Co., 451 N.E.2d 815 (Ohio 1983) (foreseeability as test distinguishing intervening acts that are superseding)
Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (requirement that plaintiff show defendant influenced the decision of an independent decisionmaker)
Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (malicious prosecution causation cases assess officer influence on prosecutor’s independent decision)
DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 1999) (no liability where officer had no role in issuing warrant)
Howard v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 160 F.3d 358 (7th Cir. 1998) (statistical evidence alone insufficient to meet burden of proof)
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2007) (amended complaint governs jurisdictional analysis)