Minnesota Supreme Court weighs Amazon's liability in $4 million fire case

Amazon is asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to overturn a $4 million lawsuit stemming from a fire caused by a defective cellphone battery sold through its platform. The case hinges on whether Amazon can be held to the same strict product liability standards as traditional retailers. Berkley Regional Insurance Company, which paid for the 2018 fire in Edina, Minnesota, argues that Amazon should be accountable when third-party vendors are untraceable or insolvent.

Berkley’s attorney, Jeffrey Markowitz, contends that Amazon functions as a retailer by controlling, marketing, and distributing products, even if it doesn’t hold title to them. He warned that allowing Amazon to evade liability could set a precedent for other companies to adopt similar models. Amazon, however, argues it is merely an online marketplace and not a seller or distributor, thus exempt from liability.

The Minnesota justices appeared skeptical of Amazon’s argument, questioning why the company shouldn’t bear responsibility for defective products sold through its platform. Justice Karl Procaccini highlighted the need for someone to assume the risk when foreign manufacturers are insolvent. The case, which has already gone through lower courts, could set a precedent for how online marketplaces are held accountable for defective products.

Amazon’s attorney, Gregory Miller, countered that the company doesn’t select, source, or sell products in the same way traditional retailers do. He cautioned against imposing an operational burden on e-commerce platforms to inspect millions of third-party products globally. The case remains unresolved, with a majority of courts previously refusing to expand strict product liability to online marketplaces.