Amazon bears legal responsibility for recall of defective products
Amazon, as a “distributor”, bears legal responsibility for the recall of products that are defective or fail to meet federal consumer product safety standards, according to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). It has issued a ‘Decision and Order’ against Amazon.com.
More than 400,000 products are subject to this order: specifically, faulty carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, hairdryers without electrocution protection, and children’s sleepwear that violated federal flammability standards.
The Commission determined that these products, listed on Amazon.com and sold by third-party sellers using the ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’ programme, pose a “substantial product hazard” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). Further, the CPSC said Amazon failed to notify the public about these hazardous products and did not take adequate steps to encourage its customers to return or destroy them, thereby leaving consumers at substantial risk of injury.
Amazon had argued that it was not a distributor and bore no responsibility for the safety of the products sold under its ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’ programme.
Under the Commission’s Decision and Order, Amazon must submit proposed plans to notify consumers and the public about the hazardous products, and to remove the products from commerce by incentivising their return or destruction.
The CPSC had authorised an administrative complaint against Amazon alleging that the company distributed certain products that pose a substantial product hazard. The matter was initially tried before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who ruled that Amazon was a “distributor”, that the products present a substantial product hazard, and that Amazon must take certain steps, including issuing recalls, to protect the public from the hazardous products. Both parties appealed the ALJ’s ruling to the Commission, which considered the record in the case and heard oral argument, resulting in the Decision and Order.
The CPSC said that during the administrative law proceedings before the ALJ and the Commission, Amazon did not contest that the products present a substantial product hazard. Instead, Amazon argued that it was not acting as a distributor of the hazardous products within the meaning of the CPSA, and therefore was not responsible for taking actions to protect the public.
