Opinion
No. 2022-C-00068
03-15-2022
Cassandra SKAGGS v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.
Writ application denied.
Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., would grant and docket for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton and assigns additional reasons.
CRICHTON, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons:
Although it appears the lower courts have applied well-established statutory law and jurisprudence in deciding this matter, because the issues presented herein involve the ever-present, and likely recurring, potential liability of an online marketplace, I would grant this application for the benefit of developing jurisprudence in this area of business law. See St. Romain v. Cherokee Insurance Co., et al., 21-1412 (La. 11/23/21), 328 So.3d 72, writ denied (Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons, noting the "authority of this Court on the nature of business entities is wanting, and more guidance is needed in this area of the law."); and Regency Intrastate Gas, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Commission , 21-1559 (La. 1/19/22), 331 So.3d 320, writ denied (Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons, citing St. Romain, supra , and emphasizing the need for clarification in the law of this state with respect to business partnerships). In my view, this particular intersection of technology, online marketplace entities, and the law warrant this Court's attention and thorough consideration.
McCALLUM, J., would grant and docket for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton and assigns additional reasons.
I agree with my colleague, Justice Crichton, that this area of the law needs additional attention. I, too, would grant the writ application, not because I disagree with the result reached by the lower courts, but because greater clarity is needed in what can be a kaleidoscope of confusion regarding the liability of a third-party marketplace. Very often, technology can clothe an existing, understandable process in the trappings of novelty without any substantive change having occurred.
This case is an example of everything old becoming new again. Amazon, as explained in excellent detail by the Court of Appeal, is very much akin to a farmers market, albeit one of gargantuan proportions. In either scenario, various vendors gather at a particular venue, provided by another party, and ply their wares. It should matter not that one location has a physical address while the other has an address on the Internet. Except for the absence of bidding, this system of conducting business is analogous to auctions, and, under most circumstances, an auctioneer incurs no liability for selling the things of others. See Chambers v. Kennington , 35,079 p. 9 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/28/01), 796 So. 2d 733, 738-39 ("generally speaking, an agent, or auctioneer, is not responsible to third parties where his principal is disclosed."). One obvious difference in the comparisons is the sheer massiveness of Amazon, including the scale on which Amazon conducts business and its range of business operations. However, in applying the law, this Court should make no distinctions based on size or scale. Furthermore, these differences showcase the difficulty of defining Amazon as a business entity, and, necessarily, any liability it may incur. Ultimately, what is of concern in the modern business landscape is the current lack of well-developed legal principles as to the liability of mammoth online platforms to consumers. Thus, I would grant and docket this matter for deeper consideration.
eBay would be another example of an internet marketplace involving third-party sellers of goods. As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States, "eBay operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388, 390, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L.Ed. 2d 641 (2006).