The article explains another way to see it - because the manufacturer in this case (and most safety cases involving Amazon) are sketchy Chinese companies that are selling products that don't even attempt to meet any sort of safety standards, contain counterfeit safety markings, and are basically illegal to sell in the United States. Both the seller and manufacturer are impossible to track down when something goes wrong. I would bet even if you were able to track them down it would be impossible to enforce any fines or judgements against them because they are in an outside jurisdiction.

It can be argued that Amazon should have some sort legal responsibility to do a miminal vetting process for things it sells on it's site. Or, in other words, should be required to make an effort to only sell legal products.

"Not our problem that someone else is using our store to sell illegal and unsafe products that we store in our wearhouses, accept payment for, and deliver" shouldn't be a valid defense.

The consumer has no contract with the manufacturer. It is the vendor's responsibility. Of course, the vendor can sue the manufacturer but that's a separate thing.

However, Amazon is successfully arguing that they are not the vendor. The vendor is a third party using Amazon's platform.

Edit: that said, I think this needs to change.

Following the same logic eBay would be liable for anything anyone sells on it. And Etsy too.

Expanding even further next in the line would be Craigslist, with the defense hinging on argument they don't facilitate payments like etsy, amazon or ebay.

So where do we draw the line?

One possible line is that you can't have a vendor-vendee relationship between two parties if one of them doesn't know the other exists. It's nonsensical to claim that Amazon is facilitating a relationship between manufacturer and buyer if we take at face value the claim that they don't even know who the manufacturer is. At that point, Amazon effectively owns the product and is a reseller.

Let’s keep it simple. Whoever takes the money is the vendor. Amazon lists it, amazon fulfills it, and they get paid for it. Sounds like the vendor to me.

Except Amazon doesn’t list it. The vendor does.

I exclusively use Amazon and fulfilled by Amazon under the assumption they have some sort of QC in place since it's their warehouse, payment processor, and customer support that I have to deal with it. But no, doing that does not guarantee me that I won't be sent questionable goods.

Ebay on the other hand I am under no illusion that they are not the vendor. Same with Craigslist, Etsy, Tindie, etc.

...except the listings that are "Fulfilled by Amazon"...no?

Amazon doesn't add the items to their inventory. Someone who has one to sell (a VENDOR) lists the item for sale with Amazon. If it is "Fulfilled by Amazon", that just means that the vendor sent the item to one of Amazon's warehouse, and then Amazon send the item to the buyer after the sale.

If it isn't "Fulfilled by Amazon", when the item is sold, the vendor ships the item directly to the customer.

If instead of the seller's name the only thing eBay told you was "sold on eBay market", I bet they would be liable too.

When I buy something, the warranty included with the unit is from the manufacturer, not Amazon.

In your eyes, what would be the mechanism for a US citizen to sue a manufacturer who has no presence outside of China other than the Amazon marketplace?

This isn't a hypothetical; you can already buy stuff from tons of Chinese companies online -- good luck getting any recourse in a Chinese court if you have a dispute.

That is why I bought from Amazon and not Chinese companies. little did I know Amazon is No better.

> That is why I bought from Amazon and not Chinese companies. little did I know Amazon is No better.

There is a big difference between buying from Amazon and buying from company X, fulfilled by Amazon.

That difference is not obvious, especially for infrequent users or less-technical users.

Not from a consumer point of view: same website, same listing, same cart, same checkout and payment process. "AMAZON" even appears on the bank statement.

Literally the only difference is a tiny icon on the product page saying "Marketplace".

I could imagine maybe a law requiring foreign companies to obtain a bond when selling consumer goods, if they don't have substantial presence in the U.S. This bond would be a surety that consumers could recover damages in the case of negligence, at least up to a certain amount. I don't see the argument for requiring Amazon to perform that service, though.

Suppose the foreign entity decided to flout that law, and never did acquire a bond, or reported a nonexistent bond. Would it be Amazon's responsibility to detect this situation, and what remedy would be available to the customer regardless?

It should be a registered bond with a trusted source. You wouldn't trust escrow funds that weren't held by a trustworthy party if you were involved in real estate.

Would Amazon then check and enforce the status/claims against the bond as part of processing each order? It's an interesting idea for sure.

It seems like this would put a total stop to inventory commingling, which does sound attractive, at an abstract level.

Letter of Guarantee?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/letter_of_guarantee.asp

Its the bazar companys responsibility to avoid counterfeit goods, by having the company who trades their leave either there winnings and/or a safety deposit behind in case they get sued.

Its also to make sure, the legal system of the customer binds on the trading contract and inform/warn the customer that the item in question could be a molotow cocktail.

I re-read the article a few times and saw no mention of the product being counterfeit. They are all chintzy, poorly constructed, and come out of the same factory or two. Even if there was a brand name to counterfeit, the "counterfeit" would likely be almost exactly the same as the genuine article. Monoprice has a business model based on this premise.

What is the metric for "Molotov cocktail"? Anything that has batteries with a high energy density can be extremely dangerous. Cell phones, laptops, RC cars, power banks, and anything with a lithium ion battery can catastrophically and potentially fatally fail. Sure, you could mandate that Amazon run their own battery of safety tests on every product that is sold on their site; they sure as hell could afford it. The problem is that there's just about nobody else in the market that can.

Most of that stuff simply never goes through Amazon's hands. Amazon simply acts as a Chinese dropshipper for overseas purchases.

They decided that it is best to copy AliExpress, than be overwhelmed by it.

Amazon takes your money, they are responsible for the shit they receive.