Congress requests action from Amazon over selling bad products

| Oct 26, 2020 | Personal Injury

Defective products in the Alabama marketplace can be a very dangerous situation when the companies that sell them do not conduct any safety investigations. A typical product liability claim is usually directed at the manufacturer instead of the distributor unless the distributor has made false marketing claims about the product. Enticing a potential customer to purchase a defective product is what constitutes a significant component of a product liability case. And now the giant digital platform company Amazon has been targeted by Congress as potentially having the capacity to lead the way with stopping this problem for American consumers.

The issue began with a rash of complaints regarding AmazonBasics’ core products being sold that were resulting in significant and regular injuries to users. Many of these incidents occurred when the products were actually used as directed by the manufacturer. Some products were exploding or catching fire while in use. Amazon, as many other companies fail to do, did not inspect any of the explosive products before presenting them for sale and ultimately shipping the orders. While Amazon has not been directly held responsible, they are still included in the product liability lawsuits.

Congress has pinpointed Amazon’s lack of diligence in evaluating the products on their platform, stating that the overwhelming size of the operation is no excuse. According to some safety advocates, the size of the operation makes investigating claims and evaluating products even more important. Congress is concerned with public safety more so than the lawsuits, which will be filed requesting potential punitive damage awards as well.

All product liability attorneys understand that the courts can send a clear message to giant corporations like Amazon when they deal in notoriously defective products. And this is accomplished through punitive damage award requests. Amazon’s failure to maintain a reasonable duty of care toward its customers seems evident. The question now becomes whether or not the negligence was at a “gross” level.