## Facts

- A consumer in Maryland purchased an LED headlamp through Amazon’s website and gave it as a gift.
- About two weeks later, the headlamp’s batteries allegedly malfunctioned, igniting a house fire and causing more than $300,000 in damage.
- The homeowners’ insurer, Erie Insurance Company, paid the loss and sued as subrogee.
- The headlamp listing identified a third-party seller, Dream Light.
- Dream Light used a “fulfillment” arrangement in which it sent inventory to an Amazon warehouse; Amazon stored the goods, processed orders, picked/packed/shipped the item to the buyer, and collected fees from the transaction.
- The governing agreements and record evidence indicated Dream Light retained ownership and title to the headlamp; Amazon did not purchase the item from Dream Light and did not receive title by mere possession.
- Erie sued Amazon for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability under Maryland law, asserting Amazon was a “seller.”
- The district court granted summary judgment to Amazon, holding (1) Amazon was not a “seller” under Maryland products-liability law and (2) Amazon was immune under Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230(c)(1).
- Erie appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Maryland law, Amazon was a “seller” subject to negligence, warranty, and strict products-liability claims for a defective product sold by a third-party merchant and fulfilled by Amazon.
2. Whether CDA § 230(c)(1) immunized Amazon from these claims because the product listing content was provided by a third party.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the merits of the products-liability theories, holding Amazon was not a “seller” under Maryland law because it did not hold or transfer title to the product.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s CDA ruling, holding § 230(c)(1) did not bar the claims on the theory presented because the claims targeted product-distribution conduct rather than treating Amazon as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
- The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

## Legal Principles

- Under Maryland products-liability doctrine as applied, liability for defective products is imposed on sellers and manufacturers; a “sale” requires transfer of ownership and title to the buyer for a price.
- A party that provides logistics and transactional services (storage, packaging, shipping, payment processing) is not a Maryland “seller” for products liability absent evidence it took title to the product and transferred title to the buyer.
- Characterizing an intermediary as a “distributor” does not eliminate the need to show seller status grounded in ownership/title transfer under the Maryland framework applied.
- U.C.C.-based “entrustee” theories do not establish seller liability where the record shows no sale to the intermediary and no transfer of title to it.
- CDA § 230(c)(1) does not categorically bar claims against an online marketplace when the gravamen of the claim is the defendant’s role in the commercial distribution of a defective product rather than liability for third-party informational content.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Amazon’s “fulfilled by Amazon” role did not make it a Maryland products-liability “seller” because it never took or transferred title to the product, but it also held that CDA § 230(c)(1) did not provide immunity where the asserted liability was based on product-distribution conduct rather than publication of third-party content.


Erie Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 925 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2019)