US Consumer Commission Holds Amazon Liable For Hazardous Items Traded By Third-Party Sellers

The e-commerce company intends to approach the court against the decision

By: :  Daniel
Update: 2024-07-30 18:15 GMT


US Consumer Commission Holds Amazon Liable For Hazardous Items Traded By Third-Party Sellers

The e-commerce company intends to approach the court against the decision

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has unanimously held Amazon responsible for hazardous products sold on its platform by third-party sellers and shipped by the company.

The government agency stated that under the federal safety law, the e-commerce company was a ‘distributor’ of faulty items sold on its website. This meant it owed to recall over 400,000 products, including hairdryers and defective carbon monoxide detectors.

It ordered Amazon to introduce a system for notifying customers who purchased faulty items and remove the products from circulation by offering incentives for their return or destruction.

Amazon accounts for 40 percent of e-commerce sales in the US and several items are sold directly to consumers. It also partners with two million third-party sellers, who retail on the platform.

Since 2021, the online platform has fought the ‘distributor’ label, as the CPSC sued it for allegedly distributing hazardous products.

According to Tim Doyle, the spokesperson for Amazon, when first warned about the deficient products, the company ‘swiftly’ notified customers, advising them to stop using the items and issued refunds.

However, the CPRSC maintained that the company did not take adequate steps to encourage customers to return or destroy the products, leaving them at risk. Amazon had claimed the faulty products had ‘potential’ safety issues and provided customers with Amazon.com credits rather than refunds.

Amazon had argued before a judge and the five-person commission against being classified as a ‘distributor’ under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

The commission stated that the judge rejected the company's argument, and the CRPC order affirmed that decision.

Tags:    

By: - Daniel

Similar News