Amazon dodges $500M suit over 3rd party liability

Amazon avoided a lawsuit that sought $500 million in damages over third-party liability, after the 9th Circuit affirmed its dismissal in an unpublished opinion Thursday.

The circuit panel expressly held that Amazon is not liable for third party listings despite allegations from the plaintiff that the company has control over sellers and listings and uses such listings to send promotional emails and engage in search engine optimization (SEO).

The lawsuit -- brought by Planet Green Cartridges who recycle and manufacture printer cartridges -- claimed Amazon engaged in false advertising and unfair competition by participating in the sale of newly manufactured cartridges that were labelled as "remanufactured" or "recycled," according to the complaint.

Attorneys at Los Angeles-based TroyGould, representing Planet Green Cartridges, were approached for comment but did not respond in time for press.

The case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge John F. Walter and was appealed to the 9th Circuit in November 2024. Planet Green Cartridges, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 23-4434 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished)

Circuit Judges Anthony Johnstone, Morgan Christen and Johnnie B. Rawlinson wrote in a memorandum affirming the dismissal, "Planet Green has failed to allege an actionable false statement by Amazon. Planet Green does not allege that Amazon itself made any of the false statements on the packaging and labeling for clone ink cartridges, rather, the statements at issue were all made by third parties.

"Amazon's sale of a product, without more, does not warrant treating Amazon as the maker of the statements contained within that product's commercial advertising," the judges added.

The memorandum also stated that Planet Green failed to allege a legal duty owed by Amazon in its negligence claim.

"Amazon did not create the risk that third-party ink cartridge manufacturers would make false or misleading claims on their products' packaging and labels," the judges wrote in the memorandum.

The dismissal contributes to the ongoing conversation around Amazon's responsibility for third-party sellers. The judge's memorandum clarifies the liability that Amazon has regarding the messaging used by its third-party sellers.

The judges stated, "Although Planet Green insists that Amazon's extensive control over sellers and listings on Amazon.com transforms Amazon into an information content provider, enabling or enhancing the distribution of unlawful content through 'neutral tools' is distinct from 'materially contributing to [the content's] alleged unlawfulness.'"

Planet Green also claimed Amazon had used third-party listings for allegedly illicit items to send promotional emails and engage in Search Engine Optimization.

But the circuit judges found that "enhancing access to actionable content without more does not constitute creation or development of that content. Tools that recommend or suggest third-party content 'are tools meant to facilitate the communication and content of others,' and 'are not content in and of themselves'."