295 F. Supp. 3d 496
M.D. Penn.2017Background
- On Dec. 2, 2014 Heather Oberdorf purchased a retractable dog leash from a third‑party seller identified as "The Furry Gang" on Amazon Marketplace; the leash malfunctioned on Jan. 12, 2015, causing catastrophic eye injury.
- Plaintiffs sued Amazon on multiple theories (strict products liability — design and failure to warn; negligence and negligent undertaking; breach of implied warranty; misrepresentation; loss of consortium; punitive damages), alleging Amazon sold/marketed the leash.
- Amazon moved for summary judgment; Plaintiffs opposed but did not meaningfully respond to several arguments.
- Amazon operates an online marketplace where third‑party vendors list products, set price, and ship (unless using Fulfillment by Amazon); Amazon processes payments, sets listing presentation, and imposes marketplace rules but does not handle third‑party products directly here.
- Plaintiffs could not locate or contact The Furry Gang or the leash manufacturer after the accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon is a "seller" under Pa. § 402A for strict products liability | Amazon acted as seller/distributor by creating the listing, collecting payment, and facilitating the sale, so it should be liable | Amazon is merely a marketplace/means of marketing like an auctioneer and is not a § 402A seller | Amazon is not a § 402A seller; summary judgment for Amazon on strict liability counts |
| Whether breach of warranty and misrepresentation claims survive summary judgment | Impliedly Amazon represents products it places in stream of commerce are safe | Plaintiffs failed to present evidence; claims not defended in opposition | Plaintiffs abandoned these claims by not opposing; summary judgment for Amazon |
| Whether § 230 of the CDA bars negligence and negligent undertaking claims | Amazon’s role in the sale/distribution creates tort duties independent of publishing third‑party content | Claims seek to treat Amazon as the publisher/speaker of third‑party product information and are therefore barred by § 230 | Claims are barred by § 230; summary judgment for Amazon on negligence claims |
| Whether loss of consortium claim survives | Derivative of plaintiff’s substantive claims | Under Pennsylvania law derivative claim fails if underlying claims fail | Loss of consortium fails as derivative; summary judgment for Amazon |
Key Cases Cited
- Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., Inc., 522 Pa. 367, 562 A.2d 279 (Pa. 1989) (auctioneer/marketplace that merely provides a forum is not a § 402A "seller" where policy of § 402A is not served)
- Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016) (§ 230 bars claims that treat an interactive service as the publisher/speaker of third‑party content)
- Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 220 A.2d 853 (Pa. 1966) (adopting Restatement § 402A strict products liability framework)
- Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg., Inc., 563 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2009) (federal courts must predict how state supreme court would decide unsettled state law issues)
- Schroeder v. Ear, Nose, and Throat Assocs. of Lehigh Valley, Inc., 383 Pa.Super. 440, 557 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (loss of consortium is derivative of injured party’s claim)