去年，一名明尼蘇達(dá)州男子因?yàn)槭褂貌患嫒莸碾姵?，引發(fā)了火災(zāi)燒毀了車庫。因此，亞馬遜將面臨新訴訟。

意外傷害保險(xiǎn)公司聲稱，這家電子商務(wù)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(yīng)對(duì)火災(zāi)造成的75000美元損失負(fù)責(zé)。

受Amazon推薦 被打上Amazon’s Choice標(biāo)簽

該訴訟稱，這種電池享受Amazon’s Prime免費(fèi)到貨服務(wù)，并被視為“Amazon’s Choice”產(chǎn)品。藍(lán)海億觀網(wǎng)了解到，通過“Amazon’s Choice”審核的商品，亞馬遜將會(huì)推薦給顧客，因?yàn)樵摦a(chǎn)品評(píng)級(jí)高、價(jià)格合理、可立即發(fā)貨。

亞馬遜審核不力

該火災(zāi)的起因是由于電池在與不兼容的充電器一起使用，引發(fā)了火災(zāi)。而在亞馬遜網(wǎng)站上的產(chǎn)品listing信息中，該型號(hào)被列為“兼容”。

藍(lán)海億觀網(wǎng)獲悉，該保險(xiǎn)公司以疏忽、未提前警告消費(fèi)者為由對(duì)亞馬遜提起訴訟，稱其“在電池的促銷、銷售、履行和分銷中發(fā)揮了直接作用”，并聲稱電池是裝在一個(gè)印有亞馬遜標(biāo)志的盒子里交付給Meyer的。

亞馬遜得擔(dān)責(zé)

這起訴訟是對(duì)亞馬遜的考驗(yàn)，也探討了亞馬遜是否應(yīng)該為其平臺(tái)上第三方賣家銷售的產(chǎn)品承擔(dān)相應(yīng)責(zé)任。

過去，亞馬遜堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，對(duì)于某些產(chǎn)品，它只是聯(lián)系買賣方的平臺(tái)，因此不對(duì)這些產(chǎn)品的缺陷負(fù)責(zé)。

最終，法院以2比1裁定，作為提供賣方售賣產(chǎn)品的平臺(tái)，亞馬遜對(duì)事故負(fù)有責(zé)任。（跨境電商新媒體&服務(wù)連接平臺(tái)-藍(lán)海億觀網(wǎng)egainnews）文末掃碼入亞馬遜群，對(duì)接優(yōu)質(zhì)跨境電商資源。不得擅自改寫、轉(zhuǎn)載、復(fù)制、裁剪和編輯全部或部分內(nèi)容，請(qǐng)聯(lián)系我們授權(quán)。

Amazon faces lawsuit over Chinese battery that allegedly burned down a garage

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.