this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
275 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

66892 readers
5037 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the suit, Amazon argues that the company should not have legal responsibility to recall and remedy consumers for unsafe products sold on its marketplace by third-party sellers. Amazon claims that it is just an intermediary and logistics provider for third-party sales, similar to a delivery service, not a distributor or retailer that has a legal responsibility to carry out recalls. The CPSC ordered Amazon to recall more than 400,000 unsafe products in July 2024, after more than three years of adjudication.

“Instead of demonstrating its commitment to consumer safety, Amazon has fought the CPSC every step of the way for more than three years, and now it’s going to court. The law is clear that Amazon is a ‘distributor’ in this case and must carry out a recall. It’s absurd to suggest that because a company hosts a marketplace online it should be exempt from sensible requirements that help get hazardous products out of people’s homes and prevent them from being sold. The court should reject Amazon’s arguments. Taking Amazon at its word would mean hazardous products slipping through the cracks, even when they are capable of injuring or killing people.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If someone posts csam on this site and the admin willingly ignores it, they can't really argue that they aren't responsible for it.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The "willingly" makes the difference there. That changes it from negligence to intentional, and those are legally distinct.

If Amazon, or another marketplace, isn't aware of the danger of a product sold by a vendor on their platform, it's not clear if Amazon, or the market provider, is responsible. Amazon is arguing that they aren't, but I don't know enough of the law to say if that is a settled question.

Amazon definately knows the return rates and reasons products get returned. It's absurd that they wouldn't know.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 23 hours ago

One would think that they'd be expected to exercise due diligence. Not to do so would be negligence.