Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPPLY CHAIN LIABILITY ISSUES—ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS—8th Cir.: Question on imposition of strict liability on Amazon certified in consumer’s battery fire case, (Apr 30, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The issue presented a novel, recurring, and policy-intensive question more appropriate for consideration by the state’s highest court.

In a case brought by an insurer against an online marketplace seeking to impose strict liability for fire damage caused by a defective third-party product, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declined to resolve the issue under an Erie prediction. The court found that existing Minnesota precedent did not address modern e-commerce fulfillment models, that the Restatement (Third) of Torts provided no clear answer on whether such platforms qualify as “distributors,” that courts nationwide are split, and a balance was required between consumer protection and economic impact. It accordingly certified the question of whether an ecommerce platform providing order fulfillment services for a defective product is strictly liable for harm caused by that defect (Berkley Regional Ins. Co. v. John Doe Battery Manufacturer, 24-2159 (8th Cir. Apr. 27, 2026)).

Background. A woman purchased a replacement cellphone battery through Amazon from a third-party Chinese seller named Yishda. The seller took part in a fulfillment program under which Amazon handled storage, order fulfillment, returns, and customer service. The battery was advertised as an “Amazon’s Choice” product and was delivered in the platform’s packaging. Two weeks later, the woman plugged in her phone at work to charge the battery but it sparked and burst into flames, causing a fire that resulted in nearly $3.9 million in property damage. Her employer’s insurer paid the loss and, as subrogee, brought suit asserting strict products liability claims against the seller, the manufacturer, and the marketplace operator. After Amazon removed the case to federal court, the insurer dismissed claims against the other entities and sought certification of the question whether Amazon could be held strictly liable under Minnesota law for distributing a defective product sold by a third party. The district court declined certification, made an “Erie guess,” and entered summary judgment in favor of the platform; concluding that it was not strictly liable. The insurer renewed its request for certification on appeal (see Products Liability Daily, Jan. 25, 2023).

Legal standard. Certification under Minn. Stat. § 480.065 permits a federal court to refer a question of state law that is both novel and potentially determinative of the case. The Eighth Circuit emphasized that certification is discretionary but appropriate where state law is unsettled and the issue carries broader implications. Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974). Although federal courts ordinarily make an Erie guess where state law is unclear, Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), certification is preferred where prediction would require extending state law into new and uncertain territory.

Novelty and doctrinal uncertainty. The court noted that ecommerce transactions were not possible until a few decades ago. Amazon started its operations in 1994 and introduced its “Fulfillment by Amazon” program in 2006. The Minnesota Supreme Court has not decided a significant chain-of-commerce strict liability case involving a retailer since pre-internet times in Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 179 N.W.2d 64, 72 n.1 (Minn. 1970), making “the mechanics of Amazon’s business model [] novel” as discussed in McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc., 983 F.3d 194, 201 (5th Cir. 2020). The Restatement (Third) of Torts imposes liability on those engaged in “selling or otherwise distributing” products but does not clearly define whether fulfillment services constitute “distribution,” particularly where the entity does not transfer ownership. The court noted that while the marketplace operator clearly facilitates delivery and access to products, the Restatement’s definition of distribution as a “commercial transaction other than a sale” creates ambiguity when applied to post-sale fulfillment activities. This absence of controlling authority has resulted in a recognized split across jurisdictions. Some courts have held Amazon strictly liable for products ordered through its fulfillment service, Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC, 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 769, 784–85 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) while others have declined to do so, as in Erie Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 925 F.3d 135, 144 (4th Cir. 2019). This divergence, coupled with the lack of Minnesota authority, left the court without a reliable basis to predict how the state’s highest court would rule.

Recurrence and policy. The court emphasized that the issue is not isolated but likely to recur given the widespread use of online marketplaces and fulfillment programs. The question carries significant implications for consumer protection and allocation of risk in modern supply chains. On one hand, strict liability serves to protect consumers from defective products introduced into the stream of commerce, McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 154 N.W.2d 488, 500 (Minn. 1967), but on the other, extending liability to intermediary platforms could impose substantial economic burdens and disrupt established commercial practices. Niccum v. Hydra Tool Corp., 438 N.W.2d 96, 99–100 (Minn. 1989). Balancing these competing considerations involves policy judgments that are more appropriately made by the state high court.

Determinative nature. The court further noted that the issue presented is a “purely legal” question capable of resolving the case. The material facts were undisputed: the third-party seller listed the product, retained ownership, and relied on the platform’s fulfillment services for storage, shipping, and customer interface. The central question was whether those activities place the platform within the chain of distribution for purposes of strict liability. Because the answer would determine whether the platform could be held liable at all, certification was appropriate under Minn. Stat. § 480.065, subd. 3.

Certification. This court acknowledged the drawbacks of certification such as time and increased burden on parties but remarked that cooperative federalism comes at a cost, Stanford ex rel. Phillips v. Brandon Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., L.L.C., 160 F.4th 118, 141 (5th Cir. 2025). Accordingly, it certified the following question: whether, under Minnesota law, an e-commerce company that allows a third party to sell a defective product through its platform and provides fulfillment services may be held strictly liable for harm caused by the product. The court invited the state court to reformulate the question as necessary and stayed further proceedings pending resolution.

The case is No. 24-2159.

Judge: Stras, D.

Attorneys: Bradley David Fisher (Fisher & Bren LLP) for Berkley Regional Insurance Co.

Companies: Berkley Regional Insurance Co.; John Doe Battery Manufacturer

Cases: CourtDecisions SCLIssuesNews ElectronicProductsNews ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews