By Rachel Johnson Greer
A March 2025 lawsuit filing involving Amazon.com and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) represents more than just a legal battle. This is a turning point for online consumer safety and an attempt to set a dangerous precedent.
What the Lawsuit is About
Amazon is suing the CPSC over a 2021 dispute involving three categories of well-regulated products sold on its platform: hair dryers missing critical safety features, malfunctioning carbon monoxide detectors, and highly flammable children’s sleepwear. While Amazon claims it took appropriate action by removing these items and refunding customers, the CPSC demands a formal, supervised recall process.
Why this is even a discussion is a huge question… one of my own early managerial responsibilities was overseeing the product safety and recalls department, where I solidified and streamlined a formal recalls process, in cooperation with the CPSC, for all of Amazon.
But the significance of this case extends well past my old department, and these three product categories.
Amazon’s marketplace hosts millions of items, many imported directly from manufacturers with little oversight. Dangerous products do make their way onto the site, leading to injuries, property damage, recalls, and lawsuits. But the important thing is that if Amazon can be held responsible as a “distributor” for these products, that requirement will fundamentally change its business model and accountability.
Amazon’s 100% Peculiar Defense Strategy
What’s telling is Amazon’s choice of defense. Rather than focusing solely on whether they qualify as a “distributor” under existing law, they’ve also taken the extraordinary step of challenging the CPSC’s very constitutionality. Their lawsuit argues that because CPSC commissioners can’t be removed by the president except for “neglect of duty or malfeasance,” the entire agency lacks legitimate authority.
This constitutional argument is remarkably aggressive. The CPSC was established in 1972 under President Nixon with bipartisan support. Its structure—designed to insulate safety regulations from political pressure—has functioned for over 50 years without serious constitutional challenge until now.
The Real Motivation
Truly, this appears to be less about genuine legal concerns and more about delay tactics. The current commissioners—Alexander Hoehn-Saric, Richard Trumka, Mary T. Boyle, Douglas Dziak, and Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman—represent a regulatory approach that Amazon finds threatening.
Why such desperate measures? The almighty buck, of course. If Amazon must bear responsibility as a distributor for all unsafe products on its platform, the financial implications would be staggering. The company would need to:
- Employ a verification system for all products before allowing them to be listed
- Remove the countless unsafe items already on the platform
- Issue refunds and notices for years of problematic sales
- Face liability for injuries and damages caused by these products
Each day Amazon can delay a final ruling is another day of profit without these responsibilities. Their likely endgame is to extend litigation until they can negotiate a settlement that limits their liability to future sales only, effectively escaping accountability for the mountain of unsafe products that have been sold since the 90s.
The Broader Impact
Because of my roles at Amazon, namely in the product safety and regulatory compliance space, I see this issue from a few sides. It’s such an incredible platform, so helpful and convenient. And so fraught. So dangerous, and so unchecked in certain ways. But really this case isn’t just about Amazon. It’s not fair to just sue Amazon. Walmart.com, eBay, etc – all of these sites allow unsafe and illegal goods to be sold. Because of the extra argument about the constitutionality of the regulatory body itself, I see this whole thing as being actually about the future of e-commerce regulation.
Platforms like Amazon have revolutionized shopping while simultaneously creating unprecedented safety challenges. When anyone can sell almost anything globally with minimal verification, consumers become unwitting test subjects for unregulated products, without any of the traditional legal protections the threat of a lawsuit provides.
Amazon’s aggressive legal strategy reveals how desperately they want to maintain their current business model, where profits flow freely and responsibility remains limited. Their willingness to challenge a long-established agency’s very existence shows just how much is at stake.
As this case unfolds, those of us with a stake in this space should keep an eye on it for what it truly represents: a company fighting to preserve a system where convenience and profit rule over safety and accountability. Whatever the courts ultimately decide, the outcome will shape online consumer protection for decades to come.
TL;DR: A Summary of Amazon’s Lawsuit Against the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Curious about the lawsuit between the CPSC and Amazon.com? Below is the gist, or click here to read the whole thing.
What happened
In 2020-2021, the CPSC told Amazon that some products sold on their site by third-party sellers (not by Amazon itself) were unsafe. The items were:
- Hair dryers without important safety features
- Carbon monoxide detectors that didn’t work properly
- Children’s sleepwear that could catch fire too easily
Amazon subsequently:
- Removed the products from its website
- Destroyed remaining products in its warehouses
- Emailed all 376,009 customers who bought these items
- Gave full refunds to all customers
(This, incidentally, is the process I created and oversaw during my tenure at Amazon)
Despite these actions on the part of Amazon, the CPSC filed a complaint against them in July 2021:
- The CPSC wants Amazon to repeat these actions, but under their official orders
- The CPSC says Amazon is responsible as a “distributor” of these products
Amazon’s Main Arguments
- They’re not a “distributor” – they’re a “third-party logistics provider” (like UPS or FedEx)
- They don’t make, own, or sell these products
- They merely store and ship them on behalf of the real sellers
- The CPSC can’t order them to do things twice, and Amazon already notified all customers and gave refunds
- The law doesn’t allow the CPSC to order a second round of refunds
- The CPSC is set up in a way that’s unconstitutional
What Amazon Wants
- For the court to cancel the CPSC’s order
- For the court to declare that Amazon is not a “distributor” of these products
- For the court to rule that the CPSC’s structure is unfair and goes against the Constitution
Language from the lawsuit itself
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Amazon respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor
and against the Commission as follows:
A. Vacate the Commission’s January 16, 2025 Final Order (as well as all earlier orders
incorporated therein, including the July 29 Order) as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, in
excess of statutory authority, and contrary to constitutional right;
B. Declare that Amazon is a third-party logistics provider, not a distributor, with
regards to the FBA logistics service;
C. Declare the Commissioners’ statutory removal protections unconstitutional;
D. Award Amazon reasonable fees and costs incurred in bringing this action; and
E. Award such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.