Court Rejects Attempt To Blame Amazon For The Purchase Of Product Used For Suicide

There have been a bunch of attempts over the last few years to try to get around Section 230, and to sue various websites under a negligence" theory under the law, arguing that the online service was somehow negligent in failing to protect a user, and therefore Section 230 shouldn't apply. Some cases have been successful, though in a limited way. Many of the cases have failed spectacularly, as the underlying arguments often just don't make much sense.

The latest high profile loss of this argument was in a big case, that received tons of attention, in part because of the tragic circumstances involved in the complaint. The complaint argued that Amazon sold suicide kits," because it offered the ability to purchase a compound that is often used for suicide, and also noted related items that are frequently bought together," based on its recommendation algorithm. The families of some teenagers who tragically died via this method, sued Amazon, saying 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 kept selling it (at least until December of 2022 when it cut off sales).

It's, of course, completely reasonable to be sympathetic to the families here. The situation is clearly horrible and tragic in all sorts of ways. But there are important reasons why we don't blame third parties when someone decides to kill themselves via suicide. For one, it can incentivize even more such actions, as it can be seen as a way of extracting revenge."

Either way, thankfully, a court has rejected this latest case, and done so very thoroughly. Importantly, while there is a Section 230 discussion, it also explains why, even absent 230, this case is a loser. You can't just random claim that a company selling products is liable for someone who uses the product for suicide.

Indeed, the opinion starts out by exploring the product liability claims separate from the 230 analysis, and says you can't make this leap to hold Amazon liable. First, the court notes that under the relevant law, there can be strict liability for the manufacturer, but no one is claiming Amazon manufacturers the compound, so that doesn't work. The standards for liability as a seller, are much higher (for good reason!). And, part of that is that you can only be held liable if the product itself is defective.

Plaintiffs' WPLA negligent product liability claim fails for a number of reasons. First, the court concludes that the Sodium Nitrite was not defective, and that Amazon thus did not owe a duty to warn. Under Washington law, no warning need be given where 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 getting hurt while jumping on a trampoline is obvious and a manufacturer/seller need not warn of such obvious dangers); Mele v. Turner, 720 P.2d 787, 789-90 (Wash. 1986) (finding neighbors were not required to warn teenager regarding lawnmower's dangers-e.g., putting hands under running lawnmower-where the allegedly dangerous condition was obvious and known to plaintiff). 9 In line with this principle, Washington courts consistently hold that a warning label need not warn of every possible injury." Anderson, 906 P.2d 341-42; Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655, 661-64 (Wash. 1986) (finding sufficient Honda's warning that bikes were intended for off-the-road use only" and that riders should wear helmets; no warning required as to risk of getting hit by car, the precise danger eventually encountered); Novak v. Piggly Wiggly Puget Sound Co., 591 P.2d 791, 795-96 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979) (finding general warnings about ricochet sufficient to inform child that a BB gun, if fired at a person, could injure an eye).

Here, the Sodium Nitrite's warnings were sufficient because the label identified the product's general dangers and uses, and the dangers of ingesting Sodium Nitrite were both known and obvious. The allegations in the amended complaint establish that Kristine and Ethan deliberately sought out Sodium Nitrite for its fatal properties, intentionally mixed large doses of it with water, and swallowed it to commit suicide. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. 161-72, 178-79, 183, 185-86, 190-202, 20-23, 116, 139-43.) Kristine and Ethan's fates were undisputedly tragic, but the court can only conclude that they necessarily knew the dangers of bodily injury and death associated with ingesting Sodium Nitrite.

And thus:

Amazon therefore had no duty to provide additional warnings regarding the dangers of ingesting Sodium Nitrite. See, e.g., Dreis, 739 P.2d at 1182 (The warning's contents, combined with the obviousness of the press' dangerous characteristics, indicate that any reasonable operator would have recognized the consequences of placing one's hands in the point-of-operation area.").

Again, think of what would happen if the results were otherwise. It is an unfortunate reality of the world that we live in, that some people will end up dying by suicide. It is always tragic. But blaming companies for selling the tools or products that are used by people in those situations will not help anyone.

The court goes even further. It notes that even if Amazon should have been expected to add even more warnings about the product, that would not have stopped the tragic events from occurring (indeed, it would have only confirmed the reasons why the product was purchased):

Second, Plaintiffs' WPLA negligent product liability claim also fails because, even if Amazon owed a duty to provide additional warnings as to the dangers of ingesting sodium nitrite, its failure to do so was not the proximate cause of Kristine and Ethan's deaths. Proximate cause is an essential element" of both negligence and strict liability theories.12 Baughn, 727 P.2d at 664. If an event would have occurred regardless of a defendant's conduct, that conduct is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury." Davis v. Globe Mach. Mfg. Co., 684 P.2d 692, 696 (Wash. 1984). Under Washington law, if the product's user knows there is a risk, but chooses to act without regard to it, the warning serves no purpose in preventing the harm." Lunt, 814 P.2d at 1194 (concluding that defendants alleged failure to warn plaintiff of specific dangers associated with skiing and bindings was not proximate cause of injuries because plaintiff would have kept skiing regardless); Baughn, 727 P.2d at 664-65 (concluding that allegedly inadequate warnings were not proximate cause of harm where victim knew the risk and ignored the warnings; the harm would have occurred even with more vivid warnings of risk of death or serious injury). A product user's deliberate disregard" for a product's warnings is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation." Beard v. Mighty Lift, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1138 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (stating that a seller may reasonably assume that the user of its 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 Ethan's deaths. The allegations in the amended complaint establish that Kristine and Ethan sought the Sodium Nitrite out for the purpose of committing suicide and intentionally subjected themselves to the Sodium Nitrite's obvious and known dangerous and those described in the warnings on the label.... Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that Amazon's failure to provide additional warnings about the dangers of ingesting Sodium Nitrite proximately caused Kristine and Ethan's deaths

In other words, there could not be product liability. There were necessary warnings, and more warnings would not have changed the outcome.

The plaintiffs also argued that Amazon could be held liable for suppressing" reviews complaining about Amazon selling the product. And on this point, Section 230 does protect Amazon:

Here, the information" at issue in Plaintiffs' WPLA intentional concealment claim is the negative product reviews that warned consumers of [Sodium Nitrite's] use for death by suicide." (Am. Compl. 241(j).) This information" was, as Plaintiffs admit, provided by the users of Amazon.com. (See id. 122, 144-45.) Indeed, the amended complaint does not allege that Amazon provided, created, or developed any portion of the negative product reviews. (See generally id.) Accordingly, only the users of Amazon.com, not Amazon, acted as information content providers with respect to Plaintiffs' WPLA intentional concealment claim. See, e.g., Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1117-19 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (concluding that Facebook was not an information content provider where plaintiffs sought to hold Facebook liable for removing a plaintiff's Facebook account, posts, and content); Joseph, 46 F. Supp. 3d at 1106-07 (concluding that Amazon was not acting as an information content provider where plaintiff's claims arose from the allegedly defamatory statements in reviews posted by third parties).

There are some other attempts to get around 230 as well, and they get rejected as well (not even via 230, just on the merits directly).

The allegations in Count II (common law negligence) fail to state a plausible claim for relief under RCW 7.72.040(1)(a). As discussed above, a plaintiff must establish that the injury-causing product 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 the Sodium Nitrite was defective on the basis of inadequate warnings. (See id.) Accordingly, the allegations in Count II fail to state plausible negligent product liability claims under the WPLA because, as a threshold point, the Sodium Nitrite is not defective. Because Plaintiffs fail to meet this threshold requirement, the court need not address their remaining arguments or the other elements of this claim.

Once again, this all kinda highlights that people who think that getting rid of 230 will magically make companies liable for anything bad that happens on their platforms remain wrong. That won't happen. Those claims still fail, they just do so in a more expensive way. It might be a boon for trial lawyers looking to pad their billable hours, but it won't actually do anything productive towards stopping bad things from happening. Indeed, it might make it worse, because efforts to mitigate harms will be used against companies, claiming it showed knowledge," and thus companies will be better off just looking the other way.