This proceeding against Amazon, which began in July 2021, concerns over 400,000 products, including faulty carbon monoxide detectors, flammable children’s pajama sets, and dangerous hair dryers, all of which the agency said were “defective and pose a risk of serious injury or death to consumers.” The agency argued that Amazon’s approach to notifying and refunding customers for third-party sales was not thorough enough, putting consumers at risk.
In response, Amazon didn’t dispute that the products were dangerous but argued that it wasn’t required by law to handle recalls the way the CPSC prescribed. Amazon said that it was merely an intermediary between its third-party sellers and the buyers whose orders it fulfilled, packaged, and delivered. (State courts’ decisions on Amazon’s liability have been divided in years past.)
The company had “claimed that sending messages to initial purchasers about ‘potential’ safety issues and providing initial purchasers with Amazon.com credits—rather than refunds incentivizing product return or destruction—were sufficient to remedy the product hazards,” according to the ruling. The CPSC disagreed. “Notice to the public is important so that people who may have received one of the products as a gift or purchased it second-hand can learn about the hazards,” the decision reads.
Central to Amazon’s defense was its position that it is not a “distributor” of products—and therefore is not responsible for recalling them under the 1972 Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)—but rather a mere “third-party logistics provider,” akin to a delivery service. But the CPSC said that this claim misrepresents the extent of Amazon’s control over every step of the process, and ruled against Amazon in its decision on Tuesday.
“Amazon cannot sidestep its obligations under the CPSA simply because some portion of its extensive services involves logistics,” the commission wrote in its ruling. “From pricing and payment processing to packaging, delivery, and tracking on the front end to post-sale customer service, returns, refunds, and recalls on the back end, Amazon exerts extensive control over products sold through its Fulfilled by Amazon program.”
When asked for comment, an Amazon spokesperson wrote, “We are disappointed by the CPSC’s decision. We plan to appeal the decision and look forward to presenting our case in court.” The spokesperson added that the products in question in this case have been recalled and refunded, that Amazon stands by the safety of every product in its store, and that its recall process is “effective and efficient.”
Consumer advocates, however, applaud the CPSC’s move.
"This is clearly the right decision. Amazon should move quickly to comply with the CPSC’s order and issue strong recalls for these hazardous products,” says Oriene Shin, a policy counsel for CR. “It should also end its damaging legal battle with the agency. The sooner Amazon acts, the sooner people will be better protected in their homes.”
