whether amazon should be considered a seller under pennsylvania strict products liability law and i think i do use of my time in that regard to go over some detail the nature of the transaction might that gave rise cause of action as well as the nature of the relationship between amazon and the third party seller my client mrs obrador of purchased the dog collar issue upon visiting amazon dot com and being directed through amazon search feature this particular collar and third party sellers this is not all the transactions on the market place amazon collects fees for from both the buyers and sellers of the products and distributes payment to the third party my claim the payment directly to the amazon for the dog collar and receive the receipt from amazon for the purchase of that collar but also know just as an aside there is been no contrary evidence but that the fact is that this dog collars believe the court indicated that where the auction house was just connected to that dealer for a single moment or period of time they were not they were not going to extend seller status satyrs unlike that auction house keys amazon has ongoing continuing relationships with the sellers on its marketplace in fact the third party seller in this case had had an ongoing relationship with amazon for some period of time before my client ever purchased a dog collar to many there are many auction houses that have an ongoing relationship with certain customers are you saying that the pennsylvania supreme court ruling seller or it has to be and variety of different types of goods that are being handled i guess i would say i would say to the court in response to that that one it seemed to me the court was focusing in  discretion over the terms or the information that's provided to the to the potential consumer and so on like an auction house where they just simply identified the remit th what information it uses in the displayed page then it consumer sees so we reserved to itself the third party seller submit whatever information it wants amazon puts it into the form and the vice president of  marketplace set is much they've developed the format that they think appeals or that they want to use and they take that information and molded to how they want to present it viewed by the customer but so are german surprise and one of the reasons to hold to fit someone into the definition of seller is if they assume liability for the defect they can raise their price to cover the the risk that they're taking where is here amazon is not the one that sets the price it's the seller sets the price that's true but amazon sets the price that it by charging more amazon holds hostage the sellers this is the preeminent place to sell your goods on the internet so i am and i'm certainly is in a position to spread the cost associated with compensation for the fact of products  sellers and certainly in this case when amazon exercises a control amazon directs my client if you go on amazon michael goes on amazon punches in dot com or amazon by however they are there are you know algorithms directs consumers to the products that they want to go and some of those are amazon sold directly and some of those are third party amazon controls the terms my client pays amazon gets received from amazon i mean it seems to no i mean to a large extent other then they can certainly impose conditions on the vendors to provide some type of assurance that the products meet basic functionality amazon is in a position to dictate  market you know standards amazon's in a position to require sellers to carry liability insurance or have valid on record addresses for service of process was to prevent internet service providers for being held liable from defamatory or otherwise harmful content on posted by third parties it was inactive when the internet was negligence i saw the cause of action straight in the complaint but can you tell me what is your theory of negligence the district court says described your negligence claim as being based on him is on the ceiling distribution of the product and then it said specifically i constructed an advertis and collected money is your negligence claim based upon their advertisement or is it something more now that is not the navy claim is based on the fact i suppose that they did not do anything to  not liable are any theory that seeks to treat it as the publisher or speaker of information provided by a third party faction musher are different from the facts in this particular case are these online lot of stewards with brick buildings don't have title to work to sell you they're selling it on consignment are you saying that they should they aren't sellers in the pennsylvania consignees are in a different position and there are cases i'm not aware of any specifically in pennsylvania but there are cases from other states that have extended product liability to consignees but a consignment store actually has custody possession of the product for some period of time so that raises  keep any of its goods it just has relationships with a lot of suppliers and the customer walks in and goes into the brick and mortar store and said please order me a package of widgets they go get them you're saying that brick and mortar stor from the customer to the recipient it collects the payment on it then remits a portion of money to the supplier keeps its portion on the can hold payment it can suspend accounts it can take a product off the market it controls the communication between the supplier and the customer it selects what can be sold and it requires that seller to have good standing indemnity insurance this sounds no different than the sales agent who is a in the discussion of the policy considerations governing the scope of liability the court looked at the incentive in the ability of the you know the auctioneer there to control the quality of the product  and what they said was that the auctioneer has no way from ship with the manufacturer it can't control how the product is made it can't insist on a particular design or inspect how it's made and that's that's a key fact and it's the same with amazon amazon has a relationship with the seller but it has no relationship because if you promote any of its any of the items with us when it i guess it depends on what you mean by promote there's a sense in which it is promoting all of the items understand i don't mean just ockham what about like amazon choice best seller those designations aren't they like hawking or promoting and selecting a particular product to draw the customers attention i don't think you could say that but you could in big trouble there they are in presenting and they are an auction house in presenting the work of art for sale they are saying that this is what we represent it is and  if it turns out to be a fake i think people are going to go after the auction house which which i think shows an additional participation in selecting the products you selling i think in your the answer you give and your hypothetical is correct your honor but that's not a product liability claim that would be a liability for misrepresentations that the auctioneer is making  the auctioneer says something about the product and the thing that the auctioneer says is not true that that would be a base a little bit but put what you are saying about the product in a way says a lot of their ing on product liability you're saying that this is a a dog leash even walk your dog or dog collar that you can walk your dog with and implying that it's a collar that going to stand up to the wear and the third party saw or said those things all of the description of the the name of the product the price of the product the description of the product that was presented to the consumer would see on the website that this is overt or saw all of that content was provided by the third party seller not by amazon to amazon had a brick and mortar store and it had vailable for consumption products it meaning factures side by side but with products that are supplied by the third party seller the customer walks in has exactly the same shopping experience and the third party sell a product just gets sent to their house as does the amazon product is it your position that it would be a seller for the amazon manufacture products but not a seller for the third party product even though the customer is having the same experience and the terms are the same in terms of the transaction itself if if in your hypothetical the store is as amazon has and clearly principal point of it is to in some provides parties to take care to ensure the products are safe and when they have a if they have a responsibility because of that they risk being in seller status land wouldn't that incentivize them to be sure that they can track down the suppliers of the product and make sure they're amenable to service or are there some means to find them ensure that there is at least some minimal level of safety which we know  the hoverboard case is that exact same as i did write it was on learn it was a problem took it off their website is no longer available third party product to my right right so there is there is a method by which an internet set seller like amazon could be incentivized to take better care in all the products it's making available well i think in some have it in there is a sense in which that is true but there is but that is equally  instead of using amazon the most likely way that they would sell their products is by having their own website they would get people to see their website by placing an advertisement on google so your people doing a search you know they go to google they  well but every then and then you look at you know the credit card companies in that hypothetical are you a necessary part of the process the necessary part of the transaction by processing the payment you have the postal service has bickle custody of the product and delivers that there are a lot of entities that are part of the transaction the facilitate the transaction without which it would not take place that corgan principle you know exercise some control words or inspect the responsibility is being thrust upon me that's fine i will simply increase my feet to the third party seller and we will have  incentive for amazon to make the products they sell say for without any and the cost to them because they are going to pass it on to the original seller into the purchaser sure and then the  could have raised its auction fees and passed along and then the courts you know they are in a position to distribute the cost but the but that wasn't a sufficient basis for liability and i would suggest the tos to say that amazon must be the and it's got all kinds of products that are made by all kinds of folks and it's it's been thrust within the chain to be response why should amazon be treated differently or any or its service provider be treated differently because the department store has a contract for relationship with the manufacturer of the products on the amazon has a contractual relationship with this with a third party supplier but but but that doesn't give them the ability to control the manufacturer in the directory of us so you've been to the first floor of macy's it's got all kinds of cosmetic count counters are you saying it's got control over what clinic does it mean com and all of the other service providers i mean it was that not exactly what amazon because a i think the macy's actually you know i is actually first called me i mean this is literally selling it to you that they they have purchased it from somebody who purchased upon the manufacturer there is a back to physical like physical ability to tend to the object from one point to another well that's part of it and also there is they want to make sure sure that the product is safely manufactured that they're going to present that amazon has reached a magnitude of size that i think they could do it very usefully and the expense that is involved in that they could pass on in the in the price in the fee they trudged for the object if they're selling well that is a policy argument that the pennsylvania court you know could adopt it has not  only third party suppliers and goods there's no more no way the only people who can be responsible products liability is this the third party and then under your theory then that would really just eradicate products liability and all of the development it had to make sure that everyone in the chain is responsible for what gets put in in the stream of commerce into ultimate consumers isn't that what you're basically your theory would be if everybody just deals on line and never has take physical possession of anything all those folks are alive and therefore the only one responsible ever is going to be that reject third party supply where you can still sue the third part of you can't sue the people who the so created the sale by know any more than the development of the law that's going on in terms of product liability but things that are in the chain of distribution you just because now that we live in an internet economy in some ways that that or that law no control over the safe the safe design and manufacture of a product so other than perhaps raising the fees little that it could do because it is the responsibility of the third party seller to choose the product source the product and control its manufacturer amazon doesn't do any of those things and is not in a position to do any of those things  is a pennsylvania question should we certify to the pennsylvania supreme court the issue of whether an online marketplace like amazon is subject to the certainly is something that's available to the  the one hand controls various aspects in the terms of the sale but then want to step back on the other hand to say they had nothing to do with it with respect to the communications decency act in the immunity provided i submit to you that the ninth circuit statement fair housing council versus roommate applies significantly when the court stated the internet is no longer fragile means of communication that could easily be smothered in the cradle by overdose of force and of laws regulations apple board brick and mortar businesses whether it become a dominant perhaps a preeminent means through which commerce is conducted and its vast region in the lives of millions