Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC
Issue
Whether Amazon could be strictly liable as a seller for defective hoverboards sold by third-party merchants through the Amazon Marketplace, where Amazon took a more passive role in the transaction than it did in Bolger.
What Happened
Plaintiff purchased a hoverboard through Amazon from a third-party merchant and was injured when it exploded. Unlike in Bolger, Amazon did not store or ship the hoverboard through its FBA (Fulfillment by Amazon) program — the seller handled its own logistics. Amazon argued that in the absence of its fulfillment services, it was a pure marketplace intermediary and not a seller subject to strict liability. The California Court of Appeal applied the Bolger framework and held that Amazon's involvement in facilitating the transaction — setting the terms of sale, processing payment, and providing a guarantee to buyers — was still sufficient to place it in the chain of distribution for liability purposes.
Why It Matters
Extended Bolger beyond the FBA context, establishing that Amazon's marketplace model more broadly — not just its fulfillment services — can constitute seller status in California. Clarified that strict products liability in the e-commerce marketplace context turns on the totality of the platform's commercial involvement, not solely on whether it physically handled the product.
How accurate was this summary?