2019 Ohio 586
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Dennis Stiner, administrator of his son Logan’s estate, sued Amazon and multiple third parties after Logan died from acute caffeine toxicity caused by ingesting pure caffeine powder purchased via Amazon by a friend (K.K.).
- The powder was listed on Amazon by a third-party seller, The Bulk Source (Tenkoris); Tenkoris sourced, packaged, and shipped the product directly to K.K.; Amazon processed payment and provided the online marketplace platform.
- Stiner’s second amended complaint raised claims under Ohio’s Products Liability Act (design defect, failure to warn, nonconformity, and supplier negligence) and Ohio’s Pure Food and Drug Law (sale/offering of adulterated or misbranded product), among other counts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon on all counts; the court found Amazon was not a “supplier” or the seller/offering party for purposes of the statutes, and never had possession or control of the product.
- On appeal the Ninth District affirmed, concluding (1) no genuine dispute of material fact that Tenkoris—not Amazon—placed the product into the stream of commerce, and (2) public-policy or statutory construction did not support expanding “supplier” or “offeror” to encompass Amazon’s marketplace role. The court declined to decide CDA immunity as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon was a "supplier" under R.C. 2307.71(A)(15) for PLA claims | Amazon exercised sufficient participation/control in placing the product into commerce (platform, payment processing, display, profit) to be treated as supplier/manufacturer | Amazon merely provided an online marketplace; Tenkoris chose, possessed, packaged, and shipped the product—Amazon did not sell, store, label, or otherwise control the product | Amazon is not a "supplier"; summary judgment for Amazon affirmed (no genuine issue material fact on supplier status) |
| Whether Amazon "sold" or "offered for sale" the allegedly adulterated product under R.C. 3715.52 | The marketplace display, payment processing, promotion, and customer belief that Amazon was seller suffice to treat Amazon as offeror/seller | The seller (Tenkoris) created the listing, set price/description, fulfilled the order and retained possession—ordinary meaning of sale/offer points to Tenkoris | Amazon did not sell or offer for sale the product; summary judgment for Amazon affirmed |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | Stiner contends disputed facts about Amazon’s role and consumer impressions create triable issues | Amazon points to documentary record showing Tenkoris’ control and Amazon’s role as platform; Stiner failed to point to specific contrary evidence | No genuine dispute on material facts relevant to supplier/seller elements; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. §230) bars claims | Stiner disputes CDA applicability and argues claims sound in supplier liability not publisher immunity | Amazon asserted CDA as additional defense shielding actions relating to third-party content/listings | Appellate court found CDA issue moot because it affirmed summary judgment on statutory grounds and declined to decide CDA in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (standard for summary judgment viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment motions)
- Welch Sand & Gravel v. O&K Trojan, 107 Ohio App.3d 218 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (discussion of "supplier" and public-policy considerations under Ohio PLA)
- Long v. Tokai Bank, 114 Ohio App.3d 116 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (disallowing expansive supplier liability for tangential participants)
- Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 3d 496 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (declining to treat Amazon as seller under Pennsylvania products liability law)
- Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (analysis of whether marketplace actions can constitute an offer to sell; later resolved for Amazon)