Erie Insurance Company v. Amazon.com

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 · Torts

925 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2019)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityNegligenceBreach of warrantysellertitle transferAmazon fulfillment

Facts

Trung Cao bought a headlamp on Amazon's website, where the transaction identified the product as "sold by: Dream Light" and "Fulfilled by: Amazon." Dream Light shipped its inventory to Amazon's warehouse, and under Amazon's fulfillment program Amazon stored the product, packaged it after purchase, collected payment, deducted its fee, and remitted the balance to Dream Light; Dream Light set the product price and created the product description. After Cao gave the headlamp as a gift, its batteries allegedly malfunctioned and caused a house fire exceeding $300,000 in damage. Erie, the insurer that paid the loss, sued Amazon on the theory that Amazon was the product's seller under Maryland law.

Issue

Whether Amazon was a "seller" of the headlamp under Maryland law, and thus potentially liable in negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability for the allegedly defective product, when the product was sold by a third-party seller on Amazon's website and Amazon merely fulfilled the order. The court also considered whether Erie's claims were barred by immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

Rule

For Maryland products liability claims sounding in negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, the defect must be attributable to a seller, and a seller is one who sells or contracts to sell goods by transferring ownership and title to the buyer for a price. An entity that provides services facilitating a sale, such as storage, packaging, payment collection, shipping coordination, or other fulfillment functions, but does not take title to the goods, is not a seller. Section 230(c)(1) immunity applies only when a claim seeks to treat an interactive computer service provider as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another; it does not bar claims premised on alleged liability as a seller of a defective product.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Nora Kim bought a space heater through the website of HarborGate Marketplace. The page stated "sold by: Blue Ember Imports" and "fulfilled by: HarborGate." Blue Ember set the price, shipped inventory to HarborGate's warehouse, and retained title under their agreement while HarborGate stored, packed, collected payment, deducted its fee, and arranged shipment.

If the heater was defective and caused a fire in Maryland, is HarborGate most likely a seller for purposes of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, Maryland products liability attaches to a seller, meaning one who transfers ownership and title for a price. An entity that stores goods, packages them, collects payment, and ships them, but does not take title, is a service provider facilitating the sale rather than a seller. Therefore HarborGate would not be a seller on these facts.