Amazon escapes liability in Texas by Jeremy Robinson July 6, 2021
On June 25, 2021, in Amazon.com, Inc. v. McMillan, No. 20-0979, 2021 WL 2605885 (Tex. June 25, 2021), the Texas Supreme Court held that under Texas law, Amazon couldn’t be held liable as the “seller” of a defective product.
Products are considered to be defective when they have design, manufacturing, or marketing defects. When these flaws make the product unreasonably dangerous, victims have the right to pursue a product liability claim for compensation with the help of an injury attorney in San Diego.
Amazon can be held liable for defective products that they sell from third parties on its Marketplace and are “Fulfilled by Amazon.” In August 2020, an appeals court in California reversed a 2019 trial court ruling and stated that federal law does not shield Amazon from third-party defective product liability.
Broadband Breakfast’s article, “E-Commerce Liability Cases Could Open Floodgates For Lawsuits, Panelists Agree,” covers a recent ITIF webinar on recent rulings against Amazon, proposed legislation, and what all this means for Amazon and other e-tailers.
CaseyGerry partner Jeremy Robinson speaks with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) on recent e-commerce liability cases, proposed legislation, and the potential impact on e-tailers, in the ITIF Webinar – Should Online Marketplaces be liable for defective products?
On May 4, 2021, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., No. 20-55295, that Snap, Inc., the maker of the popular social media app Snapchat, was not protected by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C.
CaseyGerry partner Jeremy K. Robinson recently spoke with GeekWire on the impact of the recent Amazon ruling in Loomis v. Amazon.Com LLC and what it could mean for Amazon and other e-tailers such as eBay and etsy.
Bloomberg Law spoke with CaseyGerry partner Jeremy Robinson on the recent court decision in Loomis v. Amazon.com, LLC and the widespread implication of the decision on online marketplaces.
In Loomis v.
