Amazon facilitates and even in part enables their third party vendors to operate without any legal recourse for the consumer in the event of a products liability claim. If Amazon is going to allow third parties to peddle contraband/illegal/imitation goods which pose a serious risk to the consumer, then give the consumer no recourse to collect damages, then Amazon as the administrator absolutely should be held liable. Remember that Amazon is itself a merchant and not simply a platform for third party vendors. Additionally, Amazon “recommends” certain vendors as “choice.”
You can still buy Furry Buddy or SightHound Gang dog leases on Amazon. I wonder if they’re related to Furry Gang. That’s something Amazon could help with.
Amazon could be forced to provide all of the companies private information including the CEO and have a background check done on the company and person’s involved, insuring that in the future any seller on Amazon is able to be held liable. Saying that Amazon is liable for the products that other people sell on its marketplace incentivizes Amazon to further just rip off the product, make it themselves, and cut out the middle man. They would get more profits from this, not less.
I’m struggling with the liability here. If the collar broke, wouldn’t the mfg/seller of the collar be liable? I know all of the facts are not in the story, but, it does say the collar broke, not the leash. Am I missing something here? Oh, that’s right, Amazon has DEEP pockets, so, let’s go after them.
Amazon is liable because they do very little due diligence on their sellers.. The same way a grocery store would be liable for negligently using sketchy distributors resulting in people getting sick. If the consumer can’t sue to vendor, a court may allow them to pursue recourse from the retailer for not doing reasonable due diligence.
Wholesalers and manufacturer reps are sued all the time (and usually lose) when a manufacturer can not be accessed (can you say China). Isn’t Amazon akin to a wholesaler?
I do ALOT of shopping on Amazon (I think I may be invited to the delivery drivers kids wedding…..lol) anywho……the first thing I do whenever I am looking to buy something on Amazon is read the reviews of the product (not just the ones that are put on the main page either) to get a feel for what the true overall feel for the product is. The second thing I do is check the seller reviews to see how the deal with issues that other customers have. If things don’t add up or look good I just find another seller offering the same item (lets face it one product can be sold by 100 different stores on Amazon!). The buyer needs to have a little bit of responsibility for doing research when buying online.
Amazon is like the modern day mall. If Mall of America allows a new store to come in as a tenant to sell its product and then the store goes out of business why should Mall of America be liable for that stores product/service when all they did was provide the storefront for the seller? Our culture has become too sue happy and money hungry……if someone does something negligent then yes by all means seek compensation but because you made a bad choice don’t look for the biggest check book to compensate you!
I don’t understand how anyone but the owner of the dog should be liable for this accident. According to the article the dog lunged causing the collar to break resulting in the leash to retract (this is what the leash is intended to do). Any responsible dog owner knows these retractable leashes are dangerous and should not be used. Everyone is looking to make a quick buck.
Agree. Retractable leashes do not comply with many leash laws (unless the owner never uses more than 6 feet of leash) plus they are not good for training a dog to walk properly (if the owner cares about this).
Consumer protection, good call.
Absolute bullcrap!
No, Amazon should not be held even 1% liable for the products it’s third-party merchants sell.
The third-party merchants should be 100% held liable.
Amazon facilitates and even in part enables their third party vendors to operate without any legal recourse for the consumer in the event of a products liability claim. If Amazon is going to allow third parties to peddle contraband/illegal/imitation goods which pose a serious risk to the consumer, then give the consumer no recourse to collect damages, then Amazon as the administrator absolutely should be held liable. Remember that Amazon is itself a merchant and not simply a platform for third party vendors. Additionally, Amazon “recommends” certain vendors as “choice.”
You can still buy Furry Buddy or SightHound Gang dog leases on Amazon. I wonder if they’re related to Furry Gang. That’s something Amazon could help with.
Amazon could be forced to provide all of the companies private information including the CEO and have a background check done on the company and person’s involved, insuring that in the future any seller on Amazon is able to be held liable. Saying that Amazon is liable for the products that other people sell on its marketplace incentivizes Amazon to further just rip off the product, make it themselves, and cut out the middle man. They would get more profits from this, not less.
I’m struggling with the liability here. If the collar broke, wouldn’t the mfg/seller of the collar be liable? I know all of the facts are not in the story, but, it does say the collar broke, not the leash. Am I missing something here? Oh, that’s right, Amazon has DEEP pockets, so, let’s go after them.
Amazon is liable because they do very little due diligence on their sellers.. The same way a grocery store would be liable for negligently using sketchy distributors resulting in people getting sick. If the consumer can’t sue to vendor, a court may allow them to pursue recourse from the retailer for not doing reasonable due diligence.
Wholesalers and manufacturer reps are sued all the time (and usually lose) when a manufacturer can not be accessed (can you say China). Isn’t Amazon akin to a wholesaler?
Made in America might be a good goal for these small ticket consumer items.
I do ALOT of shopping on Amazon (I think I may be invited to the delivery drivers kids wedding…..lol) anywho……the first thing I do whenever I am looking to buy something on Amazon is read the reviews of the product (not just the ones that are put on the main page either) to get a feel for what the true overall feel for the product is. The second thing I do is check the seller reviews to see how the deal with issues that other customers have. If things don’t add up or look good I just find another seller offering the same item (lets face it one product can be sold by 100 different stores on Amazon!). The buyer needs to have a little bit of responsibility for doing research when buying online.
Amazon is like the modern day mall. If Mall of America allows a new store to come in as a tenant to sell its product and then the store goes out of business why should Mall of America be liable for that stores product/service when all they did was provide the storefront for the seller? Our culture has become too sue happy and money hungry……if someone does something negligent then yes by all means seek compensation but because you made a bad choice don’t look for the biggest check book to compensate you!
I don’t understand how anyone but the owner of the dog should be liable for this accident. According to the article the dog lunged causing the collar to break resulting in the leash to retract (this is what the leash is intended to do). Any responsible dog owner knows these retractable leashes are dangerous and should not be used. Everyone is looking to make a quick buck.
Agree. Retractable leashes do not comply with many leash laws (unless the owner never uses more than 6 feet of leash) plus they are not good for training a dog to walk properly (if the owner cares about this).