## Facts

- Kisha Loomis bought a hoverboard through Amazon’s online marketplace from a third-party seller identified as “TurnUpUp” (associated with an alleged China-based company).
- The hoverboard was shipped by Forrinx Technology (USA), Inc.; the seller did not use Fulfillment by Amazon, and Amazon did not physically possess or ship the product.
- Amazon processed Loomis’s payment, deducted fees (including a referral fee), remitted the balance to the seller, and controlled the buyer-seller communications channel through its website.
- Third-party sellers operated under Amazon’s Business Solutions Agreement, which required seller verification and provision of product/safety information and gave Amazon authority over listings, seller access, and funds.
- After the hoverboard was charged in Loomis’s bedroom, a fire occurred; Loomis sustained burns while attempting to extinguish it.
- Loomis sued for strict products liability and negligent products liability (among other claims); Amazon was later substituted as a defendant.
- The trial court granted Amazon summary judgment, concluding Amazon was not within the chain of distribution and functioned as a service provider.

## Issues

1. Whether Amazon may be held strictly liable under California law for injuries caused by an allegedly defective product sold by a third-party seller through Amazon’s marketplace, where Amazon did not fulfill the order.
2. Whether summary adjudication was proper on a negligent products liability claim against Amazon based on its role in facilitating the transaction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Amazon and remanded.
- The court held there was a triable issue of material fact whether Amazon functioned as a direct link in the vertical chain of distribution for strict products liability.
- The court rejected Amazon’s characterization of itself as a mere service provider at the summary judgment stage given its control over the transaction and marketplace conditions.
- The court also held summary adjudication was improper on negligent products liability because Amazon did not show that such claims are categorically limited to manufacturers and sellers.

## Legal Principles

- California strict products liability may extend beyond formal labels (e.g., “seller” or “manufacturer”) to entities that function as part of the producing and marketing enterprise in the stream of commerce.
- An entity’s operational control over product listing conditions, transaction processing, and marketplace access can support treating it as within the distribution chain for strict liability purposes.
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, permits a reasonable finding that the defendant played an intermediary role central to marketing and distribution and could affect product safety.
- Negligent products liability claims are not defeated on summary adjudication absent persuasive authority establishing categorical immunity based solely on the defendant’s platform status.

## Conclusion

The court held that Amazon’s marketplace practices and contractual control over third-party sellers created triable issues as to strict and negligent products liability for an allegedly defective hoverboard sold through its platform, requiring reversal of summary judgment and further proceedings.


Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC, 63 Cal. App. 5th 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)