Court: District Court, D. Maryland; November 9, 2016; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Ryan McDonald has filed a seven-count complaint against LG Electronics USA, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., asserting products liability and negligence after a battery from LG exploded and caused injuries while in his pocket. The case was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Amazon has filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the court has reviewed without a hearing.
The court accepts as true the facts in McDonald’s complaint, which details that he ordered two LG rechargeable batteries from a third-party seller, Safetymind, via Amazon. On December 31, 2015, one battery exploded, causing burns that required medical treatment. McDonald’s claims include products liability against LG (Counts I-IV), negligent failure to warn against both defendants (Count V), general negligence against both (Count VI), and breach of implied warranty against both (Count VII). He seeks damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages.
For a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, it must provide a clear statement of the claim and factual support that allows for a reasonable inference of liability. The court found that only three counts (V, VI, and VII) pertain to Amazon, and concluded that the allegations do not establish a plausible claim against Amazon. Consequently, Amazon's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Amazon seeks dismissal of the claims against it under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), asserting that the statute protects websites from liability for information provided by third parties. Amazon argues that all claims are barred by this immunity. In contrast, the plaintiff contends that Section 230 does not apply because it is “content-based” and argues that it does not shield websites from liability for selling defective products. The plaintiff acknowledges that Section 230 protects against defamation claims related to third-party content but stresses that the issue at stake is Amazon's sale of a defective product, not the content of the product listing.
Section 230(c)(1) states that interactive computer service providers should not be treated as publishers or speakers of third-party information. The Fourth Circuit has interpreted this to grant federal immunity to service providers for third-party content. Courts generally apply a three-part test to determine if immunity applies: (1) whether the defendant is a provider of an interactive computer service; (2) whether the postings in question are from another information content provider; and (3) whether the claims seek to treat the defendant as a publisher or speaker of that content.
In this case, there is agreement that Amazon qualifies as an interactive computer service and that a third party created the product listing. However, the plaintiff's argument focuses on the third element, asserting that the claims for negligence and breach of implied warranty do not aim to hold Amazon liable as a publisher or speaker, indicating that these claims may not be barred by Section 230.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not provide blanket immunity for interactive computer services if they play a direct role in tortious conduct, such as being involved in the sale or distribution of defective products. This principle is supported by Fourth Circuit case law, which states that such immunity is lost if the service acts as an information content provider. The Ninth Circuit emphasizes the importance of balancing immunity to avoid giving online businesses an unfair advantage over traditional businesses. The Sixth Circuit similarly expresses caution in applying Section 230 to all state law tort claims against online services.
In the current case, the plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty (Counts VI and VII) target Amazon's own alleged tortious actions rather than its role as a publisher of third-party content, thus not invoking Section 230 for dismissal. However, the plaintiff's claim of negligent failure to warn (Count V) does attempt to classify Amazon as a publisher, which may invoke Section 230's protections. This claim seeks to impose on Amazon a duty to edit or filter third-party content or to accompany such content with warnings, both of which have been rejected by courts under Section 230, as such duties are traditionally associated with a publisher's role.
While some authority exists regarding the potential for an independent duty to warn, the Fourth Circuit has acknowledged that Section 230 immunity may be forfeited if the service also acts as an information content provider, but it has not clearly defined whether such a duty to warn exists. Overall, while some claims may not be dismissed under Section 230, others that involve publishing functions are likely barred.
In Doe v. MySpace, Inc., the Fifth Circuit ruled that MySpace was not liable for failing to implement safety measures to protect minors from sexual predators, citing Section 230, which shields online platforms from liability for third-party content. The court noted that the plaintiff's claims implied MySpace was responsible for publishing third-party communications and did not establish an independent duty to warn users about harmful content.
Conversely, in Doe v. Internet Brands, the Ninth Circuit determined that an interactive service with knowledge of misleading and dangerous content had an independent duty to warn users. The plaintiff alleged that ModelMayhem.com was used by rapists to lure her for a harmful encounter, and the court found that Section 230 immunity did not apply because the claim was based on a failure to warn rather than on the publication of third-party content.
The Fourth Circuit has not addressed the ruling in Internet Brands and has generally interpreted Section 230 immunity broadly. Even if that reasoning were applicable, the plaintiff in the current case against Amazon did not provide evidence that Amazon knew third-party sellers were offering dangerous products. Therefore, while the negligence and breach of implied warranty claims were not barred by the Communications Decency Act, the negligent failure to warn claim fell under Section 230 immunity and was dismissed.
The plaintiff’s complaint serves as the basis for evaluating the plausibility of his claims against Amazon, as established by the court. The court highlights inconsistencies between the factual assertions in the plaintiff's brief and those in the complaint. The complaint identifies Amazon as an online retailer involved in the sale of products from third-party sellers like Safetymind. The plaintiff contends that Amazon is liable for the sale of a defective battery, asserting that Amazon facilitated the transaction by processing payments, approving the seller, potentially fulfilling the order, controlling shipping costs, and guaranteeing the battery's condition.
The court emphasizes that, per Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it will only consider the allegations in the complaint, not those presented in the plaintiff's opposition brief, as amendments to the complaint cannot be made through such briefs. Amazon argues that the negligence and breach of implied warranty claims against it should be dismissed because the complaint does not sufficiently link Amazon to the allegedly defective product, asserting that it neither manufactured nor sold the item. In response, the plaintiff claims Amazon's liability stems from its role as a financial intermediary in transactions and the referral fees it earns. The plaintiff also requests discovery to investigate potential additional involvement by Amazon in the product's distribution chain.
Maryland courts require plaintiffs in product liability cases to demonstrate three key elements: a defect in the product, attribution of that defect to the seller, and a causal link between the defect and the injury. In this case, the plaintiff has plausibly claimed that the LG rechargeable battery he purchased was defective, as it exploded and caught fire, which is inconsistent with expected product behavior. However, the plaintiff's claims against Amazon fail at the second element. While he alleges that Amazon facilitated the sale, he does not assert that any defect is attributable to Amazon, as the product was designed, manufactured, and sold by LG and shipped by a third party, Safetymind. The complaint does not accuse Amazon of breaching any duty related to its role as a platform for third-party sales, thus lacking the necessary attribution for negligence. Furthermore, under Maryland's UCC, Amazon does not qualify as a merchant or seller because it merely provided a platform for sales rather than engaging in direct sales of the goods. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty against Amazon are dismissed. The document concludes by noting uncertainty regarding whether LG has been served, as no representation has been made by LG's counsel.
The Court is able to rule on Amazon's pending Motion despite the plaintiff's claims regarding Amazon's seller standards. The plaintiff does not allege that Amazon was responsible for creating the sale listing for LG batteries. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to platforms from liability based on third-party conduct, as established by case law. The plaintiff's claims against eBay and other entities were similarly premised on third-party content publication, and while the Sixth Circuit did not adopt the district court's broad interpretation of Section 230, it upheld the dismissal of claims based on a thorough review of the allegations. The Court finds that amending the Complaint would be futile due to Section 230 immunity, leading to a dismissal of the claim with prejudice. Notably, the plaintiff incorrectly references “Defendant Safetymind,” which is not named elsewhere in the Complaint and is not a party to the case. Furthermore, the plaintiff's assertion regarding Amazon's "A to Z Guarantee" does not hold weight since no claim for breach of express warranty or contract has been made.
