Court dismisses attempt to blame Amazon for buying product used for suicide

[ad_1]

of the department that’s-not-how-negligence-works

There have been a bunch of attempts over the past few years to try and circumvent section 230 and sue various websites under a theory of negligence under the law, arguing that the online service has been somehow negligent in not protecting a user, and therefore Section 230 should not apply. Some cases have been successful, albeit in a limited way. Many cases have failed spectacularly, as the underlying arguments often just don’t make much sense.

The latest high-profile loss in this argument was in a big case, which received tons of attention, in part because of the tragic circumstances involved in the lawsuit. The complaint alleged that Amazon sells suicide kits because it offers the option to purchase a compound often used for suicide, and also notes related items that are frequently purchased together, based on its recommendation algorithm. . Families of some teenagers who tragically died by this method have sued Amazon, claiming it was negligent in selling the product and making recommendations. The complaint noted that Amazon had received warnings about the chemical compound in question for years, but continued to sell it (at least until December 2022, when it halted sales).

It is of course completely reasonable to be family-friendly here. The situation is clearly horrific and tragic in many ways. But there are important reasons why we don’t blame third parties when someone decides to take their own life. On the one hand, it can incite even more such actions, as it can be seen as a means of revenge.

Anyway, thankfully, a court dismissed this latest case, and did so very thoroughly. Importantly, while there is some discussion about 230, it also explains why, even without 230, this case loses. You cannot randomly claim that a company selling the product is responsible for someone using the product to commit suicide.

Indeed, the opinion begins by exploring product liability claims separately from the 230 analysis, and says you can’t take that leap to hold Amazon liable. First, the court notes that under the relevant law there may be strict manufacturer liability, but no one is claiming that Amazon manufactures the compound, so it doesn’t work. The standards of responsibility as a seller are much higher (for good reason!). And, in part, you can only be held liable if the product itself is faulty.

The WPLA Plaintiffs’ negligent product liability claim fails for a number of reasons. First, the court finds that the sodium nitrite was not defective and therefore Amazon had no duty to warn. Under Washington law, no warning is required when the danger is obvious or known to the operator. Dreis, 739 P.2d at 1182 (noting that this is true under negligence and strict liability theories); Anderson v. Weslo, Inc., 906 P.2d 336, 340-42 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995) (noting that the risk of falling and injury when jumping on a trampoline is obvious and that a manufacturer/seller has not no need to warn of these obvious dangers); Mele v. Turner, 720 P.2d 787, 789-90 (Wash. 1986) (finding that neighbors were not required to warn the teenager of the dangers of lawnmowers, e.g. putting hands under lawnmower running where the allegedly unsafe condition was obvious and known to the claimant). 9 Consistent with this principle, Washington courts have consistently held that a warning label need not warn of all possible injuries. Anderson, 906 P.2d 341-42; Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655, 661-64 (Wash. 1986) (find enough Honda warning that bikes were for off-road use only and that riders must wear helmets; no warning required because at risk of being run over by a car, the precise danger possibly incurred); Novak v. Piggly Wiggly Puget Sound Co., 591 P.2d 791, 795-96 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979) (find general ricochet warnings sufficient to inform child that a BB gun, if fired on a person, could injure an eye).

Here, the sodium nitrite warnings were sufficient because the label identified the hazards and general uses of the products, and the dangers of ingesting sodium nitrite were both known and obvious. The allegations in the amended complaint establish that Kristine and Ethan deliberately researched sodium nitrite for its lethal properties, intentionally mixed large doses of it with water, and swallowed it to commit suicide. (See, for example, Am. Compl. 161-72, 178-79, 183, 185-86, 190-202, 20-23, 116, 139-43.) The fates of Kristine and Ethan were unquestionably tragic , but the court can conclude only that they necessarily knew of the dangers of bodily harm and death associated with ingesting sodium nitrite.

And so:

Amazon was therefore under no obligation to provide additional warnings about the dangers of ingesting sodium nitrite. See, p. ).

Again, think about what would happen if the results were different. It is a sad reality of the world we live in that some people will eventually die by suicide. It’s always tragic. But accusing companies of selling the tools or products used by people in these situations won’t help anyone.

The court goes even further. He notes that even if Amazon should have added even more warnings about the product, it would not have prevented the tragic events from happening (indeed, it would have only confirmed the reasons for which the product was purchased ):

Second, the WPLA plaintiffs’ negligence action also fails because, even if Amazon had an obligation to provide additional warnings about the dangers of ingesting sodium nitrite, its failure to do so does not was not the immediate cause of Kristine and Ethans’ deaths. Proximate cause is an essential element of the theories of negligence and strict liability. Davis v. Globe Mach. Mfg. Co., 684 P.2d 692, 696 (Wash. 1984). Under Washington law, if the user of the products knows that a risk exists, but chooses to act regardless, the warning does nothing to prevent harm. Lunt, 814 P.2d at 1194 (finding that the defendants alleged that the failure to warn the plaintiff of the specific dangers associated with skiing and bindings was not the proximate cause of the injuries because the plaintiff continued to ski despite All ); Baughn, 727 P.2d at 664-65 (concluding that allegedly inadequate warnings were not an immediate cause of harm when the victim knew of the risk and ignored the warnings; harm would have occurred even with more vivid warnings of risk death or serious injury). Willful disregard by product users for product warnings is a surrogate cause that breaks the immediate chain of causation. Beard v. Mighty Lift, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1138 (WD Wash. 2016) (stating that a seller can reasonably assume that the user of his product will read and heed the warnings…on the product (citing Baughn, 727 P.2d at 661)) .

Here, the court concludes that additional warnings would not have prevented Kristine and Ethans’ deaths. The allegations in the amended complaint establish that Kristine and Ethan sought out sodium nitrite with the intent of committing suicide and intentionally subjected themselves to the obvious and known dangerous sodium nitrites and those described in label warnings. Accordingly, plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Amazon’s failure to provide additional warnings about the dangers of ingesting sodium nitrite caused the deaths of Kristine and Ethans.

In other words, there could be no product liability. There were necessary warnings, and more warnings wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

The plaintiffs also argued that Amazon could be held liable for removing reviews complaining that Amazon sells the product. And on this point, section 230 protects Amazon well:

Here, the information at issue in the WPLA plaintiffs’ intentional concealment claim is the negative product reviews that warned consumers of [Sodium Nitrites] use for death by suicide. (Am. Compl. 241(j).) This information was, as plaintiffs admit, provided by Amazon.com users. (See id. 122, 144-45.) Indeed, the Amended Complaint does not allege that Amazon provided, created, or developed any part of the negative product reviews. (See generally id.) Accordingly, only Amazon.com users, not Amazon, acted as information content providers with respect to the WPLA plaintiffs’ intentional concealment claim. See, for example, Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1117-19 (ND Cal. 2020) (finding that Facebook was not a provider of news content when plaintiffs sought to hold Facebook liable for deleting a Facebook account, posts and content from complainants); Joseph, 46 F. Supp. 3d at 1106-07 (finding that Amazon was not acting as an information content provider when plaintiffs’ claims arose from allegedly defamatory statements in reviews posted by third parties).

There are also other attempts to get around 230, and they are also rejected (not even via 230, just on the bottom directly).

The allegations in Count II (common law negligence) do not establish a plausible claim for relief under RCW 7.72.040(1)(a). As noted above, a plaintiff must establish that the product causing damage is defective in order to recover against a negligent product seller under the WPLA. (See supra III.C.1.) The court has already rejected plaintiffs’ argument that sodium nitrite was defective based on inadequate warnings. (See id.) Therefore, the Count II allegations do not lay out plausible negligent product liability claims under the WPLA because, as a threshold, sodium nitrite is not defective. Because the plaintiffs do not meet this threshold requirement, the court need not address their remaining arguments or the other elements of this claim.

Again, all of this points to a bit that people who think getting rid of 230 will magically make companies responsible for everything that happens on their platforms are wrong. It will not happen. These claims always fail, they just do it in a more expensive way. This could be a boon for litigators looking to increase their billable hours, but it won’t actually do anything productive to prevent bad things from happening. Indeed, it could make matters worse, as damage mitigation efforts will be used against companies, claiming it showed “knowledge”, and so companies would be better off just looking the other way.

Filed Under: negligence, product liability, section 230, sodium nitrite, suicide, tort Companies: amazon

[ad_2]