CCGL9067 Companies and People: Friends or Foes?

Journaling – Week 5
Name: Chung Yik Lun Anson UID: u3593621
Industry: Online Retailing Company name: Amazon.com, Inc.
Not like Solomon and Carlton, Amazon did not abuse its legal status by transferring its
capitals, but its extraordinary legal status – a half-platform, half-store allowed it to act as a
third party letting less-restricted sale of products be transacted through it whilst bearing far
less. It was reported more than 4000 banned, unsafe, and mislabeled products were found on
Amazon. In recent 10 years, Amazon has engaged in more than 60 federal lawsuits over
product liability although the problem remains unsettled until now.

In Oberdorf case, Amazon was sued by allowing the sale of a faulty dog collar which recoiled
when Heather Oberdorf was walking were dog. The dog leash hit her left eye and took away
her eyesight. Oberdorf lost in the Pennsylvania District Court as the court believed that
Amazon was not a seller under the state law. Oberdorf then appealed, resulting to a judgement
affirmed the role of Amazon in the purchasing procedure as it was a de facto seller in the
entire process, which is supported by the definition of the term ‘seller’ in Cafazzo v. Cent.
Med. Health Servs.. In this case, ‘seller’ could be extended to lessors as they may also be the
only member in the market chain available for the victim to plaint and seek compensation
from. they may also be more appropriate to prevent the circulation of defective products.
Thus, a marketplace which lists the products on its website for facilitating transaction, like
Amazon, should be regarded as a seller and be liable. This case obstructed Amazon to exploit
the loopholes, so the public interests are reinforced.

However, public interests may still be harmed even though strict regulations are imposed.
First, the marketplaces will require all the vendors to indemnify and buy insurances, hindering
the small-scale businesses to grow and limiting the diversity of the economy. Meanwhile,
Amazon itself may not be able to make enough profits if it is responsible for any faulty
products, including the expenditure on vetting systems, lawsuits, and compensations. Yet, in
July, the US CPSC sued Amazon to compel the company to recall the defective products on
the site formally. Government intervention was exercised in legal means.

I reckon that the companies, however making money, should comply with certain social
responsibilities. For example, Amazon can add warning signs on its website to remind its
customers even though there is a possibility that some of them will refuse to continue their
shopping. However, the utmost purpose of a company is still generating profits, so it is
impossible for the company to give up its profits-oriented principle just for the well-being of
the society. In fact, there are always side effects harming the society when the company is
making money. At the same time, there are some ‘by-products’ produced too. For instance,
the status of Amazon facilitates the growth of small vendor and diversifies the economy.
Therefore, some social interests must be sacrificed for a more sustainable and prosperous
economy.

References
1. https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/28/21080720/amazon-product-liability-lawsuits-
marketplace-damage-third-party
2. https://calawyers.org/business-law/oberdorf-v-amazon-com-inc-3rd-cir/
3. https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-oberdorf-v-amazon-com-inc
4. https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181041p.pdf
5. https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2021/07/30/amazons-fight-against-product-liability-
is-in-full-swing/?slreturn=20210902011752