I previously summarized this lawsuit:

The plaintiff sells remanufactured printer ink cartridges. The plaintiff claims that Amazon listings falsely claim that other merchants’ cartridges are “remanufactured” or “recycled.” For reasons unclear to me, the plaintiff thought it would be a good idea to sue Amazon over its competitors’ alleged misdeeds, going so far to breathlessly issue a press release that it had “filed a $500 million lawsuit against tech giant Amazon.” The techlashing and David-v-Goliath framing generated fawning press coverage when the lawsuit was filed. However, with scant followup media attention, this lawsuit (filed in August, dismissed in December) rocket-docketed to failure faster than remanufactured printer cartridges run out of ink.

As I predicted, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. This results in a breezy per curiam memorandum opinion kissing the case goodbye.

Section 230. The court grants the Section 230 dismissal for all but one set of allegations.

Section 230–ICS Provider. “We easily conclude that Amazon is an “interactive computer service” provider, a term that we interpret “expansively,” because Planet Green alleges that Amazon operates websites, including Amazon.com, and much of its complaint focuses on product listings on Amazon.com.”

Section 230–Publisher/Speaker Claims. Planet Green claims “that Amazon made, or failed to prevent others from making, false or misleading statements about “clone ink cartridges” sold on Amazon.com. This theory imposes a duty on Amazon to refrain from publishing such statements.”

Section 230–Third-Party Content. “To the extent Planet Green’s claims are directed to statements published by third parties on Amazon.com product listings, this element is satisfied because Amazon merely publishes the third-party content at issue….enabling or enhancing the distribution of unlawful content through “neutral tools” is distinct from “materially contributing to [the content’s] alleged unlawfulness.”” My standard reminder that the term “neutral tools” is, and always has been, an incoherent concept.

Planet Green’s bUt ThE aLgOrItHmS argument doesn’t change the analysis: “with respect to Planet Green’s allegations that Amazon collects and analyzes customer data to create promotional emails and search-engine optimizations, enhancing access to actionable content—without more—does not constitute creation or development of that content. Tools that recommend or suggest third-party content “are tools meant to facilitate the communication and content of others,” and “are not content in and of themselves.””

Planet Green found one workaround to Section 230 when it alleged “that Amazon directly imports and distributes clone ink cartridges through the Amazon Warehouse and the Fulfilled by Amazon program, and that the packaging and labels on these clone ink cartridges include false or misleading statements.” The court says distributing those items (with the allegedly incorrect packaging) in physical space is outside Section 230’s scope. The court could have handled this doctrinally other ways. For example, it could have said that Amazon is the legally responsible retailer of those items, or it could have said that Section 230 doesn’t apply after Amazon processes the transaction (e.g., the HomeAway exception). Interestingly, it doesn’t do any of that explicitly. Instead, the coutr simply says “Planet Green’s allegations would not materially differ if Amazon conducted its transactions at a brick-and-mortar retail store.”

Partially working around Section 230 doesn’t help Planet Green because…

No False Statement. “Planet Green does not allege that Amazon itself made any of the false statements on the packaging and labeling for clone ink cartridges; rather, the statements at issue were all made by third parties. 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.” Normally, retailers don’t avoid false advertising claims because the manufacturer, not the retailer, included false statements on its packaging, but this panel wasn’t motivated to unpack its thinking more. 🤷‍♂️

Negligence. The court said that Amazon had no duty here:

Amazon did not create the risk that third-party ink cartridge manufacturers would make false or misleading claims on their products’ packaging and labels. Moreover, we have recognized that no duty is created “when a website facilitates communication, in a content-neutral fashion, of its users’ content.” [cite to Dyroff]

Again, normally retailers don’t get a free pass on negligence liability based on the misdeeds of their manufacturers, so this was a defense-favorable approach.

That last sentence–thatthere’s no negligence “when a website facilitates communication, in a content-neutral fashion, of its users’ content,” even without Section 230–says that negligence law already has a 230 common law exception. I’m not sure all of the “negligent design” opinions actually respect that legal standard.

Either way, this case is yet another example of how default law reaches the same outcome as Section 230. Section 230 reform wouldn’t have helped Planet Green.

Reading the short opinion, it’s inescapable that Planet Green utterly failed to raise any doubt in the judges’ minds about the outcome. Yet, even though Planet Green lost badly, I wouldn’t be surprised if this case has further proceedings.  Sadly, Planet Green has now taken down their GoFundMe, so you can’t contribute to their cause.

Case Citation: Planet Green Cartridges, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2025 WL 869209 (9th Cir. March 20, 2025)