Public record case file

A marketplace's role can put it in the product-liability chain

Editorial takeaway

Amazon’s marketplace label did not automatically keep it outside a product-liability claim. The court said Amazon could face the claim because it stored, listed, charged for, and shipped the third-party seller’s battery. The decision is about Amazon’s role in that California case, not a rule that every marketplace is liable.

Record details

Record Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC, 53 Cal. App. 5th 431 (2020)
Type Court decision
Status Final public record
Jurisdiction California
Forum California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
Docket or order number D075738
Decision date
Official record Read the public record

The public record

Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC is a published California Court of Appeal decision. The court reversed a trial court’s summary judgment for Amazon on the strict-products-liability claim and directed further proceedings. This case file reports that appellate ruling only. It is not a finding that every marketplace is a seller, that every product was defective, or that damages were paid.

What was alleged

The opinion describes a customer who bought a replacement laptop battery through Amazon from a third-party seller. She alleged that the battery later exploded and caused injury. The court recounted evidence that Amazon had accepted the item into its warehouse, provided the listing, charged the customer, and shipped the item in Amazon packaging.

These are the record’s allegations and evidence viewed under the appellate standard. They are not an independent factual finding by this site.

The court’s holding

The court held that Amazon could be strictly liable under California law on the circumstances before it. Its reasoning emphasized Amazon’s role as a direct link in the distribution chain: possession and storage, control of the sale process, collection of payment, shipment, and the relationship with the third-party seller. The court also concluded that federal communications-decency protections did not bar this particular products-liability theory because it depended on Amazon’s own activities.

The judgment was reversed with directions for further proceedings. The decision did not determine a final payment on the underlying injury claim.

Why this record matters

For a seller using a marketplace, the product-liability question is not answered only by who manufactured the item or whose name appeared on the listing. The applicable state law and the platform’s real role in the chain can matter. This is a California appellate decision on its facts, not a national rule or a substitute for the actual policy and platform agreement.

Read product liability versus general liability and the sister library’s page on Amazon seller insurance requirements for the insurance questions the decision does not answer.

Sources

  1. Primary source: Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC — California Court of Appeal — Published appellate opinion reversing summary judgment and analyzing Amazon's role in the chain of distribution on the facts before the court.