## Facts

- A consumer bought a replacement laptop battery through Amazon’s website; the listed seller was “E‑Life,” a storefront name used by Lenoge Technology (HK) Ltd.
- The seller participated in “Fulfilled by Amazon” (FBA), under which Amazon received and stored the seller’s inventory in Amazon warehouses.
- Amazon accepted the consumer’s order, processed payment, packaged the battery in Amazon-branded materials, and shipped it to the consumer.
- Months later, the consumer alleged the battery exploded during use, causing severe burns.
- The consumer sued Amazon and others, asserting strict products liability and related tort and warranty claims; the third-party seller was served but defaulted.
- Amazon obtained summary judgment in the trial court on the theory it was only an online marketplace, not a manufacturer, distributor, or seller for strict liability purposes.

## Issues

1. Whether Amazon’s role in an FBA transaction makes it a link in the chain of distribution subject to California strict products liability for injuries caused by a defective product sold by a third-party seller.
2. Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230 bars products-liability-based claims against Amazon arising from a third-party marketplace sale.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Amazon and remanded.
- The court held Amazon could be treated as a link in the chain of distribution for the battery and therefore could be subject to strict products liability.
- The court held § 230 did not immunize Amazon because the claims targeted Amazon’s own conduct in the transaction and distribution of the product, not publication of third-party content.

## Legal Principles

- California strict products liability can extend beyond manufacturers to entities in the chain of distribution whose roles support risk reduction, consumer compensation, and loss spreading.
- An entity may be considered part of the distribution chain even without taking title where it materially participates in the sale and physical delivery of the product and exercises control over the transaction.
- Platform control factors relevant to strict liability include possession and storage of inventory, order acceptance, payment processing, shipment, contractual leverage over sellers, and the ability to police product safety.
- CDA § 230 does not bar claims based on a platform’s own offline conduct in distributing a defective product; immunity is not triggered merely because the platform also hosts third-party listings.

## Conclusion

The court held Amazon’s FBA role placed it between the third-party seller and the consumer in the product’s distribution chain, permitting strict products liability, and rejected CDA § 230 immunity because liability was based on Amazon’s own distribution activities rather than its publication of third-party content.


Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC, 53 Cal. App. 5th 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)