Ninth Circuit backs Amazon on Section 230 defence, citing lack of direct false claims.
Planet Green Cartridges, a long-established U.S. remanufacturer of inkjet cartridges, has lost its appeal in a high-profile lawsuit against Amazon. The company had sued the e-commerce giant for $500 million (€460 million) in damages, alleging unfair competition and false advertising due to misleading listings of clone cartridges on Amazon.com.
In an unpublished ruling handed down on 20 March, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case. The three-judge panel found that Amazon was largely protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a key piece of legislation that limits the liability of online platforms for third-party content.
Planet Green had accused Amazon of knowingly allowing sellers to list clone cartridges as “remanufactured” and “environmentally friendly,” even after being alerted to the misleading listings. The company argued that this not only misled consumers but also caused significant harm to its business, the environment, and the reputation of legitimate remanufacturers.
Section 230 has long shielded online platforms from liability when users or sellers post content. To qualify for this protection, the platform must be acting as an “interactive computer service” and not as the “information content provider” of the disputed content. The court concluded that Amazon met these criteria, stating that Planet Green’s theory of liability “would treat Amazon as a publisher or speaker” of content provided by others — which is precisely what Section 230 prohibits.
The ruling cited previous precedents, including Barnes v. Yahoo! and Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group, to affirm that online retailers do not become liable simply by hosting or promoting third-party listings. “Tools that recommend or suggest third-party content are not content in and of themselves,” the judges wrote.
However, the court did acknowledge that not all of Planet Green’s claims fell under Section 230. Specifically, the judges found that allegations relating to Amazon’s direct sale and fulfilment of clone cartridges via the Fulfilled by Amazon programme and Amazon Warehouse operations were not protected. In these cases, physical packaging and labelling — rather than online listings — were at issue, and could be construed as commercial conduct rather than publication of user content.
Despite this opening, the court ruled that Planet Green failed to allege that Amazon itself made any false or misleading statements. “Amazon’s sale of a product, without more, does not warrant treating Amazon as the maker of the statements contained within that product’s commercial advertising,” the decision stated.
The court also dismissed Planet Green’s negligence claim, noting that Amazon owed no special duty to monitor or prevent third-party mislabelling. “Amazon did not create the risk that third-party ink cartridge manufacturers would make false or misleading claims,” the ruling added.
Founded in 2000, Planet Green is based in Chatsworth, California, and is one of the few remaining remanufacturers operating in the United States. The company is vocal on environmental issues and has long opposed the proliferation of single-use, non-recyclable clone cartridges in the market.
As an unpublished memorandum opinion, the ruling is not precedential but reflects the court’s reasoning in this specific case. The decision is final unless Planet Green seeks a rehearing or appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our take on this: Planet Green has spent more than two decades trying to build a legitimate, environmentally sustainable model. Amazon’s defence under Section 230 effectively says: “We didn’t write the lies; we just sold the products.” We wonder what the court might think if those products being sold — with misleading packaging, via Amazon’s own fulfilment network — weren’t clone cartridges, but drugs? How far can platform immunity go before common sense catches up?
