藍海億觀網2020年04月28日 160
“去年,一名明尼蘇達州男子因為使用不兼容的電池,引發了火災燒毀了車庫。因此,亞馬遜將面臨新訴訟。意外傷害保險公司聲稱,這家電子商務巨頭去年4月”
去年,一名明尼蘇達州男子因為使用不兼容的電池,引發了火災燒毀了車庫。因此,亞馬遜將面臨新訴訟。
意外傷害保險公司聲稱,這家電子商務巨頭去年4月將電池賣給了它的客戶——來自Cottonwood市的Dane Meyer,亞馬遜應對火災造成的75000美元損失負責。
受Amazon推薦 被打上Amazon’s Choice標簽
該訴訟稱,這種電池享受Amazon’s Prime免費到貨服務,并被視為“Amazon’s Choice”產品。藍海億觀網了解到,通過“Amazon’s Choice”審核的商品,亞馬遜將會推薦給顧客,因為該產品評級高、價格合理、可立即發貨。
亞馬遜審核不力
該火災的起因是由于電池在與不兼容的充電器一起使用,引發了火災。而在亞馬遜網站上的產品listing信息中,該型號被列為“兼容”。
藍海億觀網獲悉,該保險公司以疏忽、未提前警告消費者為由對亞馬遜提起訴訟,稱其“在電池的促銷、銷售、履行和分銷中發揮了直接作用”,并聲稱電池是裝在一個印有亞馬遜標志的盒子里交付給Meyer的。
亞馬遜得擔責
這起訴訟是對亞馬遜的考驗,也探討了亞馬遜是否應該為其平臺上第三方賣家銷售的產品承擔相應責任。
過去,亞馬遜堅持認為,對于某些產品,它只是聯系買賣方的平臺,因此不對這些產品的缺陷負責。
最終,法院以2比1裁定,作為提供賣方售賣產品的平臺,亞馬遜對事故負有責任。(跨境電商新媒體&服務連接平臺-藍海億觀網egainnews)文末掃碼入亞馬遜群,對接優質跨境電商資源。不得擅自改寫、轉載、復制、裁剪和編輯全部或部分內容,請聯系我們授權。
The lawsuit says the battery was an ‘Amazon’s Choice’ product
A mislabeled battery that allegedly caused a fire in a Minnesota man’s garage last year is the subject of a new lawsuit against Amazon. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company claims the e-commerce giant sold the battery to its client, Dane Meyer of Cottonwood, Minnesota, last April and should be responsible for the $75,000 in damages caused by the fire.
In its complaint, Farm Bureau claims the battery was eligible for Amazon’s Prime shipping and was spotlighted as an “Amazon’s Choice” product. “Through its ‘Amazon’s Choice’ program, Amazon ‘recommends highly rated, well- priced products available to ship immediately,’” the complaint states.
According to the complaint, the battery caught fire when it was used with an incompatible charger, a model listed as “compatible” in the product listing information on Amazon’s website.
The insurance company is suing for negligence, failure to warn, and liability, saying Amazon “played a direct role in the promotion, sales, fulfillment, and distribution” of the battery, which it claims was delivered to Meyer in a box with the Amazon logo on it.
The lawsuit is the latest test of how much responsibility Amazon bears for products sold by third-party sellers on its platform. In the past, Amazon has maintained that, for some products, it serves only as the conduit between buyer and seller and thus is not responsible for defects in those products.
In July 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Amazon was liable as the seller of third-party vendor’s products. The court made its ruling in the case of a Pennsylvania woman who said she was blinded in one eye after a dog collar she bought from a third party via Amazon broke and struck her in the face.
“We do not believe that Pennsylvania law shields a company from strict liability simply because it adheres to a business model that fails to prioritize consumer safety,” according to the Third Circuit’s majority opinion.
Amazon did not respond to a request from The Verge seeking comment about the pending lawsuit in Minnesota.
版權說明:藍海億觀網倡導尊重與保護知識產權,未經許可不得用于商業活動。如當前文章存在版權問題,請聯系客服申訴處理。
藍海億觀網跨境賣家交流群!
跨境24H頭條資訊,關注跨境平臺最新政策推送行業最新動態。
全球跨境市場分析、電商政策及選品思維邏輯解讀。
知名跨境大賣財報分析,真實案例分析站內站外引流促單實操技巧!
掃碼入群,與同行共贏
留點想法
評論列表(0條)
藍海億觀網2021-12-28
藍海億觀網2021-03-03
藍海億觀網2020-03-20
藍海億觀網2021-07-29
藍海億觀網2020-12-14
藍海億觀網2020-10-16
藍海億觀網2021-02-09
藍海億觀網2025-01-21