去年，一名明尼苏达州男子因为使用不兼容的电池，引发了火灾烧毁了车库。因此，亚马逊将面临新诉讼。

意外伤害保险公司声称，这家电子商务巨头去年4月将电池卖给了它的客户——来自Cottonwood市的Dane Meyer，亚马逊应对火灾造成的75000美元损失负责。

受Amazon推荐 被打上Amazon’s Choice标签

该诉讼称，这种电池享受Amazon’s Prime免费到货服务，并被视为“Amazon’s Choice”产品。蓝海亿观网了解到，通过“Amazon’s Choice”审核的商品，亚马逊将会推荐给顾客，因为该产品评级高、价格合理、可立即发货。

亚马逊审核不力

该火灾的起因是由于电池在与不兼容的充电器一起使用，引发了火灾。而在亚马逊网站上的产品listing信息中，该型号被列为“兼容”。

蓝海亿观网获悉，该保险公司以疏忽、未提前警告消费者为由对亚马逊提起诉讼，称其“在电池的促销、销售、履行和分销中发挥了直接作用”，并声称电池是装在一个印有亚马逊标志的盒子里交付给Meyer的。

亚马逊得担责

这起诉讼是对亚马逊的考验，也探讨了亚马逊是否应该为其平台上第三方卖家销售的产品承担相应责任。

过去，亚马逊坚持认为，对于某些产品，它只是联系买卖方的平台，因此不对这些产品的缺陷负责。

最终，法院以2比1裁定，作为提供卖方售卖产品的平台，亚马逊对事故负有责任。（跨境电商新媒体&服务连接平台-蓝海亿观网egainnews）文末扫码入亚马逊群，对接优质跨境电商资源。不得擅自改写、转载、复制、裁剪和编辑全部或部分内容，请联系我们授权。

Amazon faces lawsuit over Chinese battery that allegedly burned down a garage

The lawsuit says the battery was an ‘Amazon’s Choice’ product

A mislabeled battery that allegedly caused a fire in a Minnesota man’s garage last year is the subject of a new lawsuit against Amazon. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company claims the e-commerce giant sold the battery to its client, Dane Meyer of Cottonwood, Minnesota, last April and should be responsible for the $75,000 in damages caused by the fire.

In its complaint, Farm Bureau claims the battery was eligible for Amazon’s Prime shipping and was spotlighted as an “Amazon’s Choice” product. “Through its ‘Amazon’s Choice’ program, Amazon ‘recommends highly rated, well- priced products available to ship immediately,’” the complaint states.

According to the complaint, the battery caught fire when it was used with an incompatible charger, a model listed as “compatible” in the product listing information on Amazon’s website.

The insurance company is suing for negligence, failure to warn, and liability, saying Amazon “played a direct role in the promotion, sales, fulfillment, and distribution” of the battery, which it claims was delivered to Meyer in a box with the Amazon logo on it.

The lawsuit is the latest test of how much responsibility Amazon bears for products sold by third-party sellers on its platform. In the past, Amazon has maintained that, for some products, it serves only as the conduit between buyer and seller and thus is not responsible for defects in those products.

In July 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Amazon was liable as the seller of third-party vendor’s products. The court made its ruling in the case of a Pennsylvania woman who said she was blinded in one eye after a dog collar she bought from a third party via Amazon broke and struck her in the face.

“We do not believe that Pennsylvania law shields a company from strict liability simply because it adheres to a business model that fails to prioritize consumer safety,” according to the Third Circuit’s majority opinion.

Amazon did not respond to a request from The Verge seeking comment about the pending lawsuit in Minnesota.