## Facts

- Tory Williams, parent and natural guardian of minor K.W.B., bought a temporary-henna-tattoo kit through Amazon’s website from a third-party seller storefront (Fab Cart).
- The product was listed as “GSN Temporary Tattoo India Henna Tattoo Paste Black Tatouage Temporary Paste Cone Body Art Painting with Henna Stencil set.”
- K.W.B. used the kit to create a temporary henna tattoo, applied the product to her left arm, and fell asleep with her face on her left hand.
- The next day, K.W.B. allegedly woke up with permanent and disfiguring burns and scarring on her face and left arm.
- Williams sued Amazon (and later Fab Cart), asserting multiple theories, including misrepresentation and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
- As relevant to this opinion, Amazon filed a partial Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the misrepresentation count (Count IV) and the implied-warranty-of-fitness count (Count V).
- The litigation was stayed for a period while related appellate proceedings addressed Amazon’s possible liability as a “seller” in Pennsylvania products cases (including the Oberdorf litigation), then resumed in the district court.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Pennsylvania misrepresentation claim against Amazon by alleging actionable, nonconclusory misstatements attributable to Amazon (not merely collective allegations against “defendants”) and alleging reliance and harm.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under Pennsylvania’s U.C.C. § 2-315 (13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2315) against Amazon, including whether Amazon could be treated as a “seller” in the transaction and whether the pleaded facts supported “particular purpose,” seller knowledge, and buyer reliance.

## Decision

- The court **granted in part and denied in part** Amazon’s partial motion to dismiss Counts IV and V.
- The court **dismissed the misrepresentation claim in part** to the extent it depended on generalized, group pleading or theories not connected to specific, actionable representations attributable to Amazon.
- The court **allowed the misrepresentation claim to proceed in part** based on allegations that Amazon made (or was responsible for) affirmative representations about the product’s safety/quality on the Amazon product page and that Williams relied on those representations in purchasing the kit.
- The court **dismissed the implied-warranty-of-fitness claim in part**, concluding that some portions of the pleading did not adequately satisfy § 2315’s requirements as applied to the alleged transaction.
- The court **allowed the implied-warranty-of-fitness claim to proceed in part**, holding that, at the pleading stage, Williams alleged enough—given Amazon’s alleged role in the transaction and the product’s marketed use—to permit a narrowed § 2315 theory to continue.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint contains enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief.
- Under Pennsylvania law, misrepresentation claims require factual allegations identifying the misrepresentation (or omission where a duty to speak exists), the speaker, materiality, reliance, and resulting damages; conclusory allegations that “defendants” made statements, without tying content and conduct to the defendant being sued, are insufficient as to that defendant.
- Pennsylvania’s U.C.C. implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2315, arises when (a) the seller has reason to know the buyer’s particular purpose at the time of contracting, (b) the seller has reason to know the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, and (c) the buyer in fact relies; breach occurs when the goods are unfit for that purpose.
- A “particular purpose” under § 2315 is distinct from the product’s ordinary use; allegations that simply restate ordinary performance or merchantability concerns may not, without more, establish a § 2315 claim.
- In assessing warranty-based claims against an online marketplace, courts consider the defendant’s pleaded role in the transaction (including control over the listing, purchase flow, payment, shipping/fulfillment, and customer-facing representations) when determining whether it can plausibly be treated as a seller whose conduct can support Article 2 warranty liability at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court partly granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss, trimming both the misrepresentation and implied-fitness theories where the complaint relied on broad, collective allegations or did not fully satisfy Pennsylvania’s § 2315 elements, but it permitted narrowed versions of both claims to proceed based on pleaded facts tying affirmative safety/quality representations and a seller-like transactional role to Amazon.


Williams v. Amazon, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 3d 971 (2021)