Stiner v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4632

Logan Stiner (18) died from acute caffeine toxicity after ingesting powdered caffeine obtained from a friend who purchased it via Amazon Marketplace from third-party seller Tenkoris (storefront TheBulkSource).
Tenkoris sourced, packaged, shipped, and fulfilled the order itself (did not use Fulfillment by Amazon); Amazon never possessed or physically handled the product; the order page identified the seller as TheBulkSource.
Stiner sued Amazon under the Ohio Products Liability Act (R.C. 2307.71 et seq.), alleging Amazon was a "supplier" liable for defects/warnings and for supplier negligence; trial court granted summary judgment for Amazon; Ninth District affirmed.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether Amazon “otherwise participates in the placing of a product in the stream of commerce” and thus qualifies as a "supplier" under R.C. 2307.71(A)(15)(a)(i).
The Court held the catchall phrase must be read in light of the specific verbs preceding it (ejusdem generis): a person must exert control over the product (sale, packaging, labeling, preparation, etc.) to be a supplier; Amazon lacked that control here and therefore is not a supplier.
Concurring (in judgment only) opinion agreed the statute’s text bars liability but argued policy reasons (consumer protection, risk-spreading, Amazon’s functional control over marketplace transactions) justify legislative change.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amazon “otherwise participates in placing a product in the stream of commerce” under R.C. 2307.71(A)(15)(a)(i)	Stiner: Amazon’s marketplace role (product listing, presentation, customer interface, marketplace rules, pricing controls) amounts to participation and de facto control, making it a supplier.	Amazon: The statute’s list of actions (sell, distribute, package, label, etc.) limits the catchall; supplier status requires control over the product itself — sellers here performed those functions.	Court: "Otherwise participates" limited by ejusdem generis to acts similar to list items; requires control over product. Amazon was not a supplier under the Act.
Whether pre-Act strict-liability policy considerations (safety, risk-spreading) should expand "supplier"	Stiner: Policy objectives of products-liability law support imposing liability on Amazon to incentivize safety and ensure consumer recourse.	Amazon: Policy cannot override clear statutory text; Amazon lacked control over product quality, manufacture, labeling, and fulfillment here.	Court: The Act abrogated common law and the text governs; even on policy grounds, Amazon did not control product safety here; legislative change, not judicial expansion, is appropriate.

Fraley v. Estate of Oeding, 138 Ohio St.3d 250 (2014) (interpreting catchall phrases by ejusdem generis; limit broad terms to things similar to preceding list)
State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 98 Ohio St.3d 395 (2003) (statutory construction focuses on General Assembly intent)
State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355 (2004) (read statutory words in context; rules of grammar/common usage)
Anderson v. Olmsted Util. Equip., Inc., 60 Ohio St.3d 124 (1991) (discussing Section 402A strict-liability policy rationale)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (pre-Act products-liability common-law principles)
Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 609 (1995) (products-liability policy goals such as safety and cost-shifting)
Long v. Tokai Bank of California, 114 Ohio App.3d 116 (1996) (distinction between commercial lessor and financial lessor; lack of control defeats strict liability)
Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2019) (control over the product is the touchstone for seller liability; Amazon lacked requisite control)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 3d 964 (W.D. Wis. 2019) (discussing marketplace role and limits of imposing distributor/seller liability on Amazon)