Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc.

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

930 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2019)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsProducts liabilityNegligent undertakingConsumer protectionTPLAseller definitioncontrolAmazon marketplace

Facts

Megan Fox bought a FITURBO F1 hoverboard through Amazon's online marketplace in November 2015; Amazon's records showed that W2M, a third-party seller, owned the hoverboard, while the manufacturer was unknown. After Amazon investigated reports of hoverboard fires and explosions, it stopped all hoverboard sales worldwide and sent purchasers, including Megan Fox, a December 12, 2015 email mentioning unspecified 'safety issues' and lithium-ion battery safety tips, but not disclosing Amazon's investigation findings, the risk of fire or explosion, or the sales halt. On January 9, 2016, the hoverboard's lithium-ion battery caused a fire that destroyed the Fox home and caused physical and psychological injuries. Megan Fox testified that she would not have let the hoverboard enter or remain in her home had she known the omitted information.

Issue

Was Amazon a 'seller' of the hoverboard under the Tennessee Products Liability Act based on its role in the marketplace transaction? Did Amazon assume a duty to warn Megan Fox and her family under Tennessee tort law by sending the December 12, 2015 safety email? Did plaintiffs create a genuine issue of material fact on causation for their Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim based on confusion about the hoverboard's source?

Rule

For purposes of the Tennessee Products Liability Act, a 'seller' is any individual or entity regularly engaged in exercising sufficient control over a product in connection with its sale, lease, or bailment, for livelihood or gain. Under Tennessee tort law, one who undertakes to render services necessary for another's protection assumes a duty to exercise reasonable care under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 as to the person warned and § 324A as to third persons. A TCPA plaintiff must show that the allegedly unfair or deceptive act actually caused the complained-of damages.

🔒

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.

Riverton Market operates an online marketplace from Nashville. A third-party merchant in Shenzhen lists a space heater on the site, writes the product description, sets the price, retains title, and ships the heater directly to Clara Benton in Knoxville; Riverton processes Clara's payment and sends all order emails because its merchant agreement forbids direct seller-buyer contact.

If Clara sues Riverton under the Tennessee Products Liability Act after the heater catches fire, is Riverton most likely a "seller" on these facts?

Explanation. The majority adopted a control-based definition: a seller is an entity regularly engaged in exercising sufficient control over a product in connection with its sale, lease, or bailment, for livelihood or gain. But the opinion also held that merely obtaining payment and handling buyer communications was not enough where the defendant did not offer the product for sale, set its price, or make the product representations. Choice D is wrong because the court rejected a title-transfer-only definition.