Attorneys at arbitration table showcasing the complexities and challenges of mandatory arbitration through the lens of the 23andMe cases.
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Mandatory Arbitration Challenges: A Legal Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

Mandatory Arbitration Challenges: A Legal Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

Originally Published in Daily Journal: November 9, 2015

Introduction to Mandatory Arbitration Issues

Jeremy Robinson, a legal innovator reshaping consumer protection law at Savin Hennessey & Kim LLP, examines the intricate challenges posed by mandatory arbitration clauses. Known for his precedent-setting victories and analytical prowess, Robinson has become a catalyst for systemic change in consumer protection law.

The Current State of Mandatory Arbitration

In this compelling analysis for the Daily Journal, “Battles expose core problems with arbitration system,” Robinson examines the intricate challenges posed by mandatory arbitration clauses through the lens of recent 23andMe cases. The article illuminates the fundamental tensions between private arbitration and due process, highlighting how these clauses often extend beyond their intended purpose.

Key Findings from the 23andMe Cases

Robinson’s analysis centers on the recent cases filed against 23andMe, which provide a unique window into the complexities of mandatory arbitration. These cases demonstrate the challenges that arise when multiple arbitrators reach conflicting decisions, and when courts have limited ability to intervene in the arbitration process.

Historical Context and Evolution

The article expertly traces the evolution of mandatory arbitration issues, beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which effectively allowed companies to eliminate class actions through arbitration clauses. This foundation has led to the current landscape where companies increasingly implement these clauses in various transactions.

Critical Issues Identified

Robinson’s examination is particularly relevant as government regulators and legislators continue to evaluate the impact of mandatory arbitration. His analysis of the 23andMe cases reveals several critical issues in the current system:

  • The lack of due process considerations in mandatory arbitration
  • The absence of effective appellate review
  • The complexity of arbitration clauses for laypeople
  • The questionable voluntary nature of mandatory arbitration provisions

About the Author

Jeremy Robinson is an award-winning attorney recognized for his mastery of legal research, writing, and strategy. His precedent-setting success in Bolger v. Amazon.com (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431 earned him the Consumer Advocate of the Year award in 2021 from the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, following his 2016 President’s Award. His work has been featured in Bloomberg, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, and CNBC.

Robinson has co-authored significant amicus briefs with Public Justice in key appeals involving Amazon and secured crucial rulings in cases like M.F. v. Pacific Pearly Hotel Management, LLC (2017). Admitted to all California courts and the Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, he has successfully steered hundreds of complex cases to resolution throughout his 27-year career.

A prolific writer and speaker on emerging legal issues, Robinson regularly contributes to the Daily Journal and Daily Transcript, delivers CLE-approved presentations, and has authored a book chapter. Beyond his legal work, he is a musician, father of two, and puzzle enthusiast.

Read the original published analysis in the Daily Journal.

Contact Jeremy Robinson at SHK Law

Ready to discuss your case? Schedule a free case evaluation with Jeremy Robinson.

SHK LAW – SAVIN HENNESSEY & KIM

15915 Ventura Blvd, Suite 201

Encino, California 91436

Phone: (818) 960-0011

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Legal documents discussing statute of limitations in class action cases - Jeremy Robinson analysis
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Supreme Court Analysis: Preventing ‘Infinite’ Statute of Limitations in Class Actions by Jeremy Robinson

Supreme Court Analysis: Preventing ‘Infinite’ Statute of Limitations in Class Actions by Jeremy Robinson

Originally Published in Daily Journal: June 13, 2018

Introduction to Class Action Tolling

Jeremy Robinson, a legal innovator reshaping consumer protection law at Savin Hennessey & Kim LLP, examines the Supreme Court’s significant ruling on the “American Pipe tolling” rule and its implications for class action litigation. This analysis explores how the Court’s decision prevents a potentially infinite statute of limitations in class action cases.

Historical Context and Evolution

More than 40 years ago, in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court established that when class certification is denied, the statute of limitations is tolled for any member of the class who wants to intervene in the foundered class case. This principle was further developed in Crown, Cork & Seal v. Parker, where the high court clarified that this tolling also applied to any class member who wanted to file a separate individual case following an unsuccessful bid for class certification.

The China Agritech Case

The recent case of China Agritech involved a third attempt by purchasers of China Agritech’s common stock to pursue a securities class action. The case’s history demonstrates the complexity of class certification issues:

  • The first class suit failed certification due to inability to prove the stock traded on an efficient market
  • The second attempt failed due to “typicality and adequacy” concerns
  • Both cases settled after denial of class certification and were dismissed
  • Resh, not involved in earlier cases, filed a new case after the limitations period expired

The Circuit Split and Supreme Court’s Resolution

The district court initially dismissed Resh’s complaint as untimely, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, relying on American Pipe. The appeals court reasoned that allowing successive class actions would:

  • Be consistent with the policies behind American Pipe tolling
  • Promote economy of litigation
  • Reduce incentives to file multiple redundant class actions before certification decisions

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s interpretation. The Court drew important distinctions between individual claims and class claims:

  1. For individual claims, delaying until after class certification makes sense because:
    • If certification is granted, the individual claim becomes unnecessary
    • If certification is denied, individual claims can proceed without limitation issues
  2. For class claims, however, the Court identified significant problems with extending tolling:
    • Risk of infinite statute of limitations as each denied certification could spawn new class actions
    • Potential for repeated litigation of the same issues
    • Inefficient use of judicial resources

Justice Sotomayor’s Concurrence

Justice Sotomayor offered important additional insights, particularly regarding cases not subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. She noted that:

  • Rule 23 lacks similar pre-suit notice provisions
  • Absent class members may be unaware of pending suits
  • Different considerations might apply when certification is denied for different reasons

Practical Implications

The Court’s decision promotes several important objectives:

  1. Encourages early filing of all potential class actions
  2. Facilitates consolidation of related cases
  3. Enables courts to select the most appropriate class representatives
  4. Promotes efficiency in complex litigation management

Looking Forward

This ruling provides clear guidance for practitioners: the time to file a class action falls outside the bounds of American Pipe tolling. The decision reinforces the importance of timely filing and proper case management in class action litigation.

Read the full analysis in the Daily Journal

Contact Jeremy Robinson at SHK Law

Schedule Your Free Case Evaluation Today

SHK LAW -SAVIN HENNESSEY & KIM

15915 Ventura Blvd, Suite 201 Encino, California

91436 Phone:

(818) 960-0011

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
2024 law book and gavel represent new product liability updates and expert analysis by Jeremy Robinson
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Major Product Liability Developments in 2024: Expert Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

Major Product Liability Developments in 2024: Expert Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

Originally Published in Law360: August 23, 2024

The first half of 2024 has witnessed transformative developments in product liability law. From the Supreme Court’s dismantling of Chevron deference to groundbreaking PFAS settlements and a landmark CPSC ruling on Amazon’s liability, these changes are reshaping the legal landscape. As a legal innovator at Savin Hennessey & Kim LLP, Jeremy Robinson provides expert analysis on these crucial developments.

The End of Chevron Deference

In a watershed moment for administrative law, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decades-old Chevron doctrine in June 2024. The ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo fundamentally changes how courts interpret agency regulations.

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

  • Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, instructed judges to use their own judgment in evaluating agency statutory authority
  • The decision creates legal uncertainty across multiple sectors, including environmental, energy, and healthcare
  • Dissenting Justices argued for maintaining Chevron as the “cornerstone of administrative law”

Implications for FDA Regulation

The ruling’s impact extends to FDA regulation of off-label drug promotion. Legal experts suggest this could lead to significant changes in how the FDA’s interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is challenged and applied.

Landmark PFAS Settlements

2024 has seen unprecedented settlements addressing PFAS contamination of public water systems:

DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva Settlement

  • $1.18 billion agreement approved in February
  • Covers remediation of contaminated public water systems
  • Includes testing and future remediation provisions

3M Settlement

  • Up to $12.5 billion settlement approved in April
  • Encompasses approximately 12,000 public water systems
  • Addresses PFAS in firefighting foam
  • Innovative opt-out structure for water systems

CPSC’s Groundbreaking Amazon Ruling

In a decision with far-reaching implications for e-commerce, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that Amazon bears legal responsibility as a distributor for products sold by third-party sellers.

The Ruling’s Significance

The unanimous order established Amazon’s distributor status for products including:

  • Faulty carbon monoxide detectors
  • Hair dryers lacking electrocution protection
  • Children’s sleepwear not meeting flammability standards

Expert Analysis from Jeremy Robinson

Drawing from his experience winning a California appellate case holding Amazon liable for a defective laptop battery, Robinson provides crucial insight on the ruling:

“They pretty thoroughly dismantled Amazon’s various arguments about them just being a logistics provider or facilitator,” Robinson explains. “The decision was very thorough, and went through piece by piece, and explained why that’s not true and why Amazon’s characterization of itself drastically underestimates its actual level of involvement in these things.”

Looking Forward

These developments signal a transformative period in product liability law. The end of Chevron deference, massive PFAS settlements, and new precedents for e-commerce liability are reshaping how courts, companies, and regulators approach product safety and liability issues.

Practical Implications

  • Increased judicial scrutiny of agency interpretations
  • New frameworks for addressing environmental contamination
  • Enhanced accountability for online marketplaces
  • Expanded consumer protections in e-commerce

Read the full analysis in Law360

Contact Jeremy Robinson at SHK Law

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation Today

SHK LAW – SAVIN HENNESSEY & KIM

15915 Ventura Blvd, Suite 201

Encino, California 91436

Phone: (818) 960-0011

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Jeremy Robinson Weighs in on CPSC’s Historic Amazon Recall Decision

CPSC’s Groundbreaking Authority Over Amazon

SHK attorney Jeremy Robinson has provided expert analysis on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) recent landmark decision holding Amazon.com Inc. legally responsible for recalling hundreds of thousands of unsafe products sold on its platform. The unanimous ruling establishes Amazon as a “distributor” under federal law, marking a significant shift in regulatory oversight of online marketplaces. This decision represents a fundamental change in how regulatory bodies approach e-commerce platforms.

A Victory for Consumer Protection

“This is a significant victory, not only for consumers but also for physical retailers who’ve been subject to these types of provisions for quite some time,” said Robinson, whose expertise in e-commerce liability is well-established through his successful 2020 California appellate case against Amazon. “Amazon has been able to, in some states or locations at least… avoid being responsible for the products that it lists.”

Analysis of CPSC’s Decision

Robinson noted that the CPSC thoroughly dismantled Amazon’s argument that it was merely providing logistics services. The Commission’s ruling emphasized Amazon’s substantial control over products sold through its Fulfilled by Amazon program, including receipt, storage, and shipping of items. This comprehensive analysis sets a new precedent for how online marketplaces may be regulated in the future.

Regulatory Framework and Implementation

Drawing on his extensive experience in product liability law, Robinson highlighted the CPSC’s detailed requirements for Amazon under this ruling. The company must now cease distribution of affected products, notify purchasers, post information on social media, and submit monthly progress reports verifying that consumers have returned or destroyed unsafe products.

Impact on E-commerce Liability

As a leading voice in e-commerce liability law, Robinson contextualizes the ruling’s significance while acknowledging its current limitations. He explains that while this decision is substantial, state-by-state variations in product liability laws still create a complex legal landscape.

“All the states have this patchwork of product liability laws, and all of them have various different provisions in them,” Robinson noted. This insight highlights the continuing challenges in establishing consistent nationwide standards for e-commerce liability.

Broader Implications for Online Marketplaces

The decision specifically addresses three categories of products: defective carbon monoxide detectors, hair dryers, and children’s sleepwear that fails to meet federal flammability standards. Robinson’s analysis suggests this could be the beginning of broader regulatory oversight of online marketplaces, potentially affecting millions of products sold through these platforms.

Future of E-commerce Regulation

Robinson’s expertise positions him to anticipate the ruling’s long-term effects on e-commerce regulation. The decision may serve as a template for future CPSC actions against other online marketplaces, potentially reshaping how these platforms operate and their responsibilities to consumers. His insights suggest this ruling could catalyze further regulatory developments in the e-commerce space.

Read the full article on Law 36.

Contact Information

For inquiries about consumer protection litigation or to discuss your case with Jeremy Robinson and the SHK team, contact us for a consultation.

Source: Law360, “CPSC Makes Moves On Powers Of Recall Over Amazon”

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Attorney Jeremy Robinson discussing the landmark Amazon liability ruling
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Jeremy Robinson Secures Landmark Victory in Amazon Liability Case

The Groundbreaking Supreme Court Decision

SHK attorney Jeremy Robinson has achieved a significant victory in consumer protection law, successfully arguing that Amazon.com LLC can be held liable for defective products sold through its marketplace. The Supreme Court of California’s decision to deny Amazon’s petition for review cements Robinson’s appellate court victory as the only binding precedent in the country holding Amazon strictly liable for marketplace products.

“This is an important victory not only for Ms. Bolger but for all consumers in California,” said Robinson, who led the legal strategy that ultimately proved successful. “Despite Amazon’s claims, the high court denied Amazon’s petition as well as the request to have the case depublished.”

Strategic Litigation Leads to Consumer Protection Victory

The case arose when Robinson’s client suffered severe burns from an exploding laptop battery purchased on Amazon from third-party seller Lenoge Technology Ltd. (operating as “E-Life”). When Lenoge defaulted, Robinson strategically focused on establishing Amazon’s legal responsibility.

While the trial court initially sided with Amazon’s “online marketplace” defense, Robinson’s compelling arguments on appeal led to a groundbreaking 46-page published opinion that placed Amazon firmly within the stream of distribution. This decision fundamentally changes how online marketplaces can be held accountable for defective products.

Implications for E-commerce Marketplace Liability

“The significance of this ruling extends far beyond this single case,” Robinson explains. “We’ve established a legal framework that holds online marketplaces accountable for the safety of products sold through their platforms. This is particularly crucial as e-commerce continues to dominate retail sales.”

Robinson’s expertise proved instrumental in countering Amazon’s core defense that it merely provided services. He successfully demonstrated that Amazon’s extensive involvement in sales, including storage, shipping, and payment processing, made it an integral part of the distribution chain.

Setting National Precedent in Consumer Rights

While similar cases face ongoing challenges in other jurisdictions, such as the Ninth Circuit, Robinson’s victory sets a compelling precedent for future litigation. His strategic approach not only secured justice for his client but also established a framework for consumer protection in the digital marketplace.

The victory showcases Robinson’s dedication to consumer rights and his ability to adapt traditional product liability principles to modern commerce. His success establishes vital precedent that strengthens consumer protections across California’s e-commerce landscape.

Impact on Future E-commerce Litigation

Robinson’s achievement has drawn significant attention from legal scholars and practitioners nationwide. His innovative legal arguments and thorough understanding of both traditional liability law and modern e-commerce dynamics proved crucial to this landmark victory. The ruling sets a new standard for marketplace liability that may influence courts across the country.

[Read the full article on Law360]

For inquiries about consumer protection litigation or to discuss your legal needs, contact SHK for a case evaluation.

Source: Law360, “California High Court Won’t Review Amazon Marketplace Ruling”

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Legal document representing conflicting court decision on employer liability.
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Jeremy Robinson Discusses Conflicting Court Decisions on Employer Liability

Districts Split on Scope of Respondeat Superior Liability

Imagine you’re the managing partner at a law firm. One Saturday morning, you learn that the night before, one of your employees left work and later crashed into and killed an innocent driver. You’re horrified by the death, of course. But you’re also worried that your firm may be on the hook for the resulting damages.

Even if you’re not completely up to speed on respondeat superior law, you know the “going and coming” rule that normally bars employer liability for employee commutes is riddled with exceptions.

What questions do you ask? The first, and probably most obvious, is: Was the employee drunk? If so, where did they get or drink the alcohol? If the answer is “at work,” the firm is potentially in trouble, and you might want to rethink your alcohol policy.

The Impact of Purton v. Marriott International, Inc.

So holds the recent case of Purton v. Marriott International, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 499 (2013). In Purton, an employee attended a holiday function, got drunk with both his own booze and some supplied by Marriott, drove home, made it home, but then left to drive someone else home and caused a fatal crash because he was still intoxicated.

Marriott argued that once the employee made it safely home, any potential liability Marriott may have had was cut off. However, the appellate court didn’t see it that way and reversed the summary judgment, stating:

“There is no reasonable justification for cutting off an employer’s potential liability as a matter of law simply because an employee reaches home.”

In response to Marriott’s complaints that the decision effectively requires employers to escort employees home from parties, the court said Marriott “created the risk of harm at its party by allowing an employee to consume alcohol to the point of intoxication.”

This is the “instrumentality of danger” approach espoused by a number of courts. The premise is simple: If your employee does something in the course and scope of their employment that makes them an “instrumentality of danger” (like getting drunk), you, the employer, remain responsible for the employee’s torts until that condition wears off—even if the employee makes it home and leaves again.

The lesson: If you don’t let employees get drunk at employer events, there will not be a problem.

The “Required Vehicle” Exception and Conflicting Decisions

But let’s suppose our hypothetical employee was not drunk. Then we get to whether you require the employee to make their own car available for work, and where you’re located.

If you do require your employee to use their vehicle for work, two recent published cases suggest your liability in the event of an accident may turn on which appellate district you draw:

  • Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 886 (2013) from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
  • Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 220 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2013) from the 5th District Court of Appeal.

Both involve what has come to be known as the “required vehicle” exception to the “going and coming” rule. This exception holds that if the employee is required to use their personal vehicle for work or has agreed to make the vehicle available as an accommodation to the employer, the “going and coming” rule does not apply, and employers can be liable under respondeat superior for employee crashes during their commute.

Comparing Moradi and Halliburton

In Moradi, the employee, a salesperson who used her car for various employment tasks, left work to stop for frozen yogurt and attend a yoga session before going home. She planned to use her car for business travel the next day. While going to the yogurt store, she was involved in an accident. The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the employer could be liable.

In contrast, Halliburton involved an employee who was driving his employer’s vehicle and was returning to work from a personal errand (having lunch with his wife and trying to help her buy a car). He lost control of the truck, causing an accident. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, finding no liability.

The courts reached opposite conclusions. The court in Halliburton even acknowledged the Moradi decision in a footnote but did little other than say, “yeah, there’s also that case.” This discrepancy makes it hard to reconcile the two cases and, unfortunately, doesn’t provide much helpful guidance to managing partners.

Navigating Employer Liability with SHK Law

At SHK Law, our attorneys, including Jeremy Robinson, understand the complexities surrounding employer liability in vehicle accidents. We stay updated on the latest court decisions to provide you with informed and effective representation.

Read the full article on the Daily Journal: Districts Split on Scope Respondeat Superior Liability

Contact Information

For inquiries about employer liability or to discuss your case with Jeremy Robinson and the SHK Law team, contact us for a free case evaluation

About Jeremy Robinson

Jeremy Robinson is an award-winning attorney with over 27 years of experience dedicated to mastering legal research, writing, and strategy. Recognized as Consumer Advocate of the Year in 2021 by the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego for his precedent-setting success in Bolger v. Amazon.com, Jeremy has made significant contributions to product liability law. His work has garnered attention from major media outlets like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, and CNBC. Jeremy continues to influence the legal landscape through his writing, speaking engagements, and dedication to his clients.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Gavel on a courtroom desk with Jeremy Robinson's analysis of anti-SLAPP
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Understanding Anti-SLAPP Protections: A Legal Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

At SHK, our commitment to defending constitutional rights and navigating complex litigation is embodied in our exceptional legal team. With the addition of Jeremy Robinson, whose expertise in anti-SLAPP litigation adds to our robust practice, we continue to strengthen our position as leaders in this intricate area of law. Our firm’s deep understanding of anti-SLAPP statutes and their application enables us to effectively represent both private and public entities in these challenging cases.

In his insightful analysis for the Daily Journal, “Limited anti-SLAPP defense for public entities,” Jeremy Robinson examines the complex landscape of California’s anti-SLAPP laws and their application to government entities. The article delves into the fundamental tension between protecting free speech and the broad reach of anti-SLAPP statutes, highlighting how these laws extend far beyond their original intended scope of protecting public participation.

Robinson’s analysis centers on the landmark California Supreme Court decision in City of Montebello v. Vasquez (2016), which addressed the crucial question of when government entities and public employees can invoke anti-SLAPP protections. The case, involving former city council members using anti-SLAPP laws to defend against allegations of improper contract approval, illuminates the broader debate about government entities’ constitutional right to free speech.

The article expertly traces the evolution of California’s unique approach to this issue, beginning with Nadel v. Regents of University of California (1994), which established that public entities can enjoy some free speech protections. This foundation was further built upon in Bradbury v. Superior Court (1996), which recognized government entities as “persons” under anti-SLAPP law, acknowledging that they can only speak through their representatives.

Robinson’s analysis is particularly relevant as thousands of individuals and organizations face SLAPP suits annually, and as federal anti-SLAPP legislation continues to be debated in Congress. His examination of California’s distinctive position on government entities’ free speech rights provides valuable insights for practitioners navigating these complex waters.

Read Jeremy Robinson’s analysis of anti-SLAPP protections and their application to government entities. For inquiries about anti-SLAPP representation or to discuss your legal needs, contact SHK for a case evaluation. 

Source: “Limited anti-SLAPP defense for public entities” – Daily Journal

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Amazon Prime boxes stacked up
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Amazon Faces Increased Liability: A Deep Dive into the CPSC Ruling by Jeremy Robinson

SHK Law is proud to welcome Jeremy Robinson, a seasoned litigator who has made significant contributions to the legal field. His recent article in the Daily Journal, “The legal and practical implications of In the Matter of Amazon, Inc.,” sheds light on a landmark decision that could reshape the online marketplace.

In a significant victory for consumer safety, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has ruled that Amazon is a “distributor” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) for products sold through its Fulfilled by Amazon program. This ruling has far-reaching implications for both Amazon and consumers, as it underscores the company’s responsibility for the safety of products it handles.

Understanding the CPSC Ruling

The CPSC’s decision stems from Amazon’s extensive involvement in the Fulfilled by Amazon program. This program allows third-party sellers to store their products in Amazon’s warehouses and ship them directly to customers. By taking on tasks like receiving, storing, and shipping products, Amazon assumes a significant role in the product distribution process.

The CPSC’s ruling recognizes that Amazon’s involvement goes beyond mere logistics. The agency determined that Amazon exercises substantial control over the products it handles, including accepting product listings, managing inventory, and processing customer orders. This level of control, the CPSC argued, makes Amazon a distributor under the CPSA.

Implications for Amazon

This ruling has several implications for Amazon:

  1. Increased Liability: As a distributor, Amazon is now responsible for ensuring the safety of products sold through its Fulfilled by Amazon program. This means the company may face increased liability for product recalls, injuries, and other safety-related issues.
  2. Operational Changes: Amazon may need to implement stricter quality control measures and safety standards to comply with its new obligations as a distributor. This could involve additional costs and resources.
  3. Legal Battles: Amazon is likely to challenge the CPSC’s ruling in court. The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for the future of online marketplaces.

Implications for Consumers

While the CPSC’s ruling is a positive development for consumer safety, it’s important to understand its limitations. The ruling primarily affects products sold through the Fulfilled by Amazon program. It does not extend to all products sold on Amazon’s marketplace.

Additionally, the CPSA does not provide consumers with a direct cause of action against Amazon for product defects. Consumers who are harmed by defective products may still need to pursue claims under state product liability laws.

Jeremy Robinson’s Expertise

Jeremy Robinson, an accomplished litigator at SHK Law, brings a wealth of experience to the table. His insightful analysis of the CPSC ruling highlights the complexities of online commerce and the evolving legal landscape. With a keen eye for detail and a deep understanding of consumer protection laws, Jeremy is well-equipped to navigate the challenges posed by this landmark decision.

To delve deeper into the legal and practical implications of the CPSC ruling, we encourage you to read Jeremy Robinson’s full article in the Daily Journal.

Don’t Wait, Take Action

If you believe you have a product liability claim, it’s important to act quickly. There are strict deadlines for filing lawsuits, so it’s crucial to consult with an attorney as soon as possible.

Contact SHK Law today to schedule a free consultation. Let us fight for your rights and help you recover the compensation you deserve.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
1 2 3
© 2024 SHK Law, All Rights Reserved. Built by Dymic Digital