Amazon Arbitration Clause by Zac Shaffer

In today’s society, having everything at the touch of your fingertips is the new norm. From a computer in your pocket to grocery shopping online from the comfort of your couch. One of the biggest companies pioneering online purchases is Amazon.

While people have been spoiled by this advancement, the benefits and appeal of this luxury are not without downsides. One of the most potentially harmful drawbacks encountered is the terms and conditions most of us willfully ignore.

Recently, Amazon updated its terms and conditions, reinstated a mandatory arbitration clause, and added additional processes for
customers to navigate. Although the change applies broadly to customer disputes, customers injured by defective products purchased through Amazon are most affected.

If you or someone you know gets injured by an Amazon product, there may be a valid product-liability claim. Amazon’s revised terms do not eliminate the right to seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, or other damages. However, they can dictate how and where a claim against Amazon must be pursued.

Under normal situations, a customer injured by a product has the absolute right to pursue a claim and file a lawsuit in court. This allows the injured person to be heard by a jury of their peers and have the procedural protections of our judicial system. However, this new update essentially eradicates that absolute right. Instead, customers must follow Amazon’s required pre-arbitration process and generally also lose their rights to participate in class action lawsuits against Amazon.

This legal dilemma comes down to accountability and fairness. Class action lawsuits help expose dangerous products and effectuate change to protect others from significant injuries. They allow consumers (and their attorneys) to share evidence, identify similar incidents, and collectively challenge a company with vastly greater resources. But when customers are forced into individual arbitration, those same claims aren’t aired publicly in open court, but rather behind closed doors. This makes it harder for consumers and the public to recognize a recurring product hazard.

Amazon’s policy changes followed approximately 75,000 customers’ claims alleging that Alexa devices recorded users without permission. At the time, Amazon’s policy required individual claims, and the company found the process extremely expensive. Amazon’s new terms not only restore required arbitration but also establish special procedures for coordinated “mass arbitration” claims.

For product-injury cases, it all comes down to who made and sold the product. Just because Amazon lists products for sale does not mean it is the only culpable party. Depending on the facts, someone significantly injured could face the unusual possibility of pursuing a claim in multiple forums. This is frustrating and potentially legally detrimental, and it can be extremely expensive for customers as well. This may also require attorneys to be more selective when evaluating product-liability cases because of the additional resources required to pursue them.

The larger concern, however, is that Amazon unilaterally changed procedures and unsuspecting customers may lose their ability to recover simply because they are unfamiliar with the process. So, a person harmed by a defective battery, appliance, children’s product, medical device, or other item may discover that by simply clicking “Buy Now,” they also destroyed their ability to take Amazon to court and hold them accountable. When evaluating these cases, make sure to fully consider these factors so you can protect your client’s interests and avoid any malpractice while navigating the Amazon river of arbitration.