By Daniel Laurence and Andrew Ackley
It may seem obvious that the largest retailer in the world should be responsible for dangerous products sold online, but that is what Amazon has argued for years—because most state product liability law does not address online retail. Both in court and private negotiations, Amazon argued its “store” was just a passive tech platform to connect sellers with consumers.
Now the Supreme Court of Amazon’s home state, Washington, unanimously and forcefully declared that Amazon is much more. It is a store that plays an active role in sales with algorithms and advertisements. With Amazon’s power comes responsibility to avoid negligent and reckless conduct that puts lives in danger—even from self-inflicted harm.
What Is the Scott v. Amazon Case About?
The Washington Supreme Court held this month that Amazon.com can be held liable for negligently selling, without restriction, sodium nitrite; an industrial chemical Amazon reasonably should know is commonly abused as a suicide drug. Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc., 103730-9 (Feb. 19, 2026). This decision effectively overturned outdated court-made law that immunized defendants from liability for suicide, even though no similar defense existed for killing of others. The Scott decision reflects a more modern view of suicide as connected to mental health rather than moral decay, and opens Washington court doors to holding negligent sellers responsible for profiting from the devastation of foreseeable self-harm.
Why Is the Scott v. Amazon Case Important to Consumers?
This decision follows a growing list of national court decisions that reject Amazon’s self-serving myth that it is merely a “marketplace” for sellers and buyers, and not really a “seller” at all, such that it should be immune from accountability. Courts are recognizing that the evolved retail landscape is ghosting brick-and-mortar main streets and malls and making billionaires of those doing it. If business has jumped online, then all the laws that protected people from product injury should jump with it.
Washington is also Amazon’s home state. While every state has different product liability law, the Washington Supreme Court analysis should significantly influence other courts especially as to Amazon’s negligence.
Scott emphasizes that “every individual has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid the foreseeable consequences and harm from their acts.” There is no escape valve for online stores simply because they do not fit into traditional notions of retail.
What Is a Negligence Claim Against Amazon in Washington?
Prior to the Scott decision, there was surprisingly little law to explain what constitutes retailer negligence in Washington. An obvious example is when a product is recalled by the manufacturer and the retailer keeps selling it. But what about when there are consumer complaints or scientific studies? In Scott, Amazon argued “that a finding that Amazon owes Plaintiffs a duty would subject retailers to potential liability if they continued selling products after hearing one instance of misuse.” This is a common “slippery slope” argument used to avoid responsibility altogether.
The Scott Court points out that Amazon, by design, goes further than an average retailer. It actively promotes products through algorithm-based suggestions and advertisements. Amazon’s algorithm “routed potential buyers of sodium nitrite to other products that would assist in suicide such as scales, a suicide instruction book, and antiemetics to prevent life-saving vomiting.” The Scott plaintiffs also point out that parents of children who died by suicide using sodium nitrite notified Amazon via its customer service channels, as early as 2018. The combination of all these factors was sufficient to extend Amazon’s responsibility even to self-inflicted harm.
