This purposeful misbranding from manufacturers is not only having a significant impact on associated public policies and how people assess their risk of exposure to these products, but it is also arguably indicative of false and deceptive advertising and trade practices; legal claims that are sometimes brought simultaneously with product liability claims, as both concern consumer product safety and harm.

The Study

In the study, researchers compared terms for e-cigarette emissions amongst almost 800 college students, ultimately finding that the term “vapour” was linked to a lower perception of risk from secondhand exposure as compared to terms such as “aerosols” and “chemicals,” both of which evoked associations with descriptors such as “harmful” and “very harmful.” However, according to public health experts, the term “aerosol” is a more accurate term to describe e-cigarette clouds due to the harmful chemicals that they contain and the properties of those chemicals, which are retained in the air and on nearby surfaces.

Deceptive Terms Is Leading to Widespread Exposure & Exclusion from Smoke-Free Policies

Continuing to use the term “vapour” is leading to e-cigarettes being excluded from one out of six smoke-free university policies in the US. This is problematic because while regular cigarettes contain toxicants, e-cigarettes also expose bystanders to nicotine, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and other toxicants, and these bystanders include the very young: According to the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, more than half of all middle and high school students have been exposed to secondhand emissions from e-cigarettes; both indoors and outdoors; and in public places.

Attaching Deceptive and False Advertising Claims onto Product Liability Claims

Product liability and false advertising claims are sometimes brought together because consumers who rely on false or misleading information or advertising are also harmed by the misinformation; in addition to the product itself. Florida’s laws allow consumers to file deceptive and false advertising lawsuits in addition to causes of action against sellers and manufacturers that sell products that harm them. Any type of advertising that is false, has effectively deceived consumers, or is misleading can be considered deceptive, regardless of the manufacturer or seller’s intent, and any company found to have engaged in these practices can also be forced to pay monetary damages to consumers (in addition to any product liability damages assigned by the court).

If You Have Any Questions or Concerns About Misleading Claims and/or Dangerous Products in Florida, Contact Our Personal Injury Attorneys

If you or a loved one has been harmed by a dangerous product that was deceptively advertised, our Tampa defective product attorneys are ready to provide you with the guidance you need to move forward. Contact the office of Mark H. Wright, PLLC today for a free consultation to discuss your options.

Resources:

cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0531.htm

sciencealert.com/e-cigarette-clouds-aren-t-vapor-scientists-argue-that-only-makes-them-sound-safer

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/if-synthetic-marijuana-case-is-heard-by-florida-supreme-court-manufacturers-of-intoxicating-products-could-be-held-liable-for-car-accident-deaths/

The company has of late been repeatedly held responsible in court for product liability In connection with third-party vendors, but this is the first expose of its own products being linked to dangerous defects, indicating that a massive wave of litigation is likely headed towards it in connection with any and all dangerous products that it sells, and it needs to rethink its process for selecting, testing, and listing products for sale on its website. According to electrical engineer experts, it is impossible for these products to consistently catch on fire completely due to user error; if they were well-made and properly used, they should rarely pose dangers.  The senators have now asked for information from the company concerning its safety procedures and the steps it is taking to remove these hazardous products from the website and homes.

Separate Report Finds Price-Gouging On Critical Supplies During Pandemic

Recent reports also indicate that the company engaged in price gouging during the height of the pandemic on products in significant demand, such as masks, sanitizer, and toilet paper, as a first party seller; all while claiming that it was doing everything that it could to prevent third-party vendors from engaging in the practice. This included, for example, a 470 percent price increase on antibacterial soap and a 1000 percent or more markup on facemasks. It is suspected that – as opposed to individual employees going through and manually increasing prices – the company likely relied on algorithms to set its prices during the pandemic, as it always does, and pandemic-related market conditions were causing some products to go up in price–a phenomenon the company did not seem to adjust for.

If You Have Concerns Over a Defective Product, Contact The Best in Florida Injury Recovery

If you have been injured by a product sold by Amazon, regardless of who the specific manufacturer is, contact Tampa defective product attorney Mark H. Wright to assist you in discussing your options and next steps for recovery.

Resources:

cnn.com/2020/09/11/business/amazonbasics-lawmakers-demand-recalls-dangerous-invs/index.html

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/amazon-products-marked-up-more-than-1000-during-pandemic-report-finds/

cnn.com/2020/09/10/business/amazonbasics-electronics-fire-safety-invs/index.html

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/if-synthetic-marijuana-case-is-heard-by-florida-supreme-court-manufacturers-of-intoxicating-products-could-be-held-liable-for-car-accident-deaths/

In a civil lawsuit brought by the family members of the accident victims against both the criminal defendant, Generoso, who has already been convicted of vehicular homicide at this time, and the manufacturing company that produces “spice,” DZE Corp, a Leon County, Florida jury found the company 65 percent at fault and Generoso only 35 percent at fault for the three deaths. However, the first District Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s decision, finding that the company should not be held liable under Florida law, which states that anyone who sells an intoxicating substance to someone of lawful age shall not become liable for injury or damage caused by the substance unless they unlawfully furnished the substance or knowingly served “a person habitually addicted to the use of” the substance.

The First District’s Reasoning in Reversing Jury Decision

According to the First District Court, because Generoso’s criminal conduct was the “sole proximate cause” of the deaths, and Generoso voluntarily consumed the product (which was labeled “not for human consumption”), becoming intoxicated and then making the decision to illegally drive while under the influence, Generoso’s conduct was the “sole superseding proximate cause of the accident that resulted in the death, and trial court erred in allowing the jury to decide otherwise. “

Next Steps: The Importance of This Case

As a result, the families of the accident victims invoked the discretionary jurisdiction of the state supreme court to review the decision of the First District, stating that the decision expressly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law. Depending upon whether the Florida Supreme Court reviews the case, and how it decides, like the product liability cases against Amazon, this could open up a significant number of new defective product cases, especially since synthetic marijuana products are illegal.

Was Your Loved One Injured or Killed Due to The Effects of a Dangerous, Defective Product? Contact Tampa Defective Product Lawyer Mark Wright

If you or a loved one has been injured by a product here in Florida, either directly or indirectly by someone else, contact Tampa defective product lawyer Mark H. Wright for assistance. Our dedicated attorneys will help investigate and discuss your ability to pursue a claim for damages.

Resource:

efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2020/1280/2020-1280_notice_89862_notice2ddiscretionary20juris2028direct20conflict29.pdf

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/first-appellate-court-finds-amazon-com-strictly-liable-for-all-products-it-fulfills-on-its-website-delivering-justice-for-plaintiffs/

As the largest retailer in the world, which now controls almost 50 percent of the e-commerce market, more than half of Amazon’s products are sold by third parties. This has, until now, blocked accountability for these sellers and their products, and destroyed any hope of remedies for those who are injured by them.

Amazon Plagued by Counterfeit Problems & Foreign Sellers That Cannot Be Served in Court

According to a recent investigation, Amazon is flooded with counterfeit, dangerous, defective, substandard products; some of which are even sometimes illegal and sold by fly-by-night parties who cannot be located. In fact, according to one report, more than 40 percent of third-party sellers are based in China.

The Importance of the Court Finding Strict Liability, Specifically

As a result of the decision, Amazon will likely have to take measures to ensure that the products that it sells are safe.  It also means that consumers will not only have remedies available if they are victims of the products, but strict liability in and of itself is a very strong ruling for plaintiffs because it does not depend on actual negligence or an intent to harm, and has an expanded scope in order to account for the widespread market realities of the modern world. It also affords maximum protection to injured plaintiffs in the form of absolute liability.

If You Were Injured By A Product Purchased On Amazon.com In Florida, Contact Injury Attorney Mark H. Wright

Although these issues come down to state law that is litigated in federal courts, because California is such a large consumer market, and because this is a decision at the appellate level, it is expected to have a broad impact on existing and future claims in other states, including here in Florida.

If you have been injured by a product sold on Amazon.com’s website, contact Tampa defective product lawyer Mark H. Wright for help in investigating and pursuing a claim to help make you whole again. Our trial-ready team is always prepared to provide our clients with the justice they deserve.

Resources:

washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/14/how-amazons-quest-more-cheaper-products-has-resulted-flea-market-fakes/

pcmag.com/news/over-40-percent-of-amazons-sellers-are-based-in-china

timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Bolger-ruling.pdf

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/hand-sanitizers-sold-at-major-retail-outlets-recalled-after-fda-finds-presence-of-toxic-ingredient-methanol/

Although the FDA issued an import alert on July 16 to prevent these products from entering the US, unfortunately, many were already already being sold here, and are still able to make their way in. Previous hand sanitizer products found to contain methanol and recalled include those manufactured by Eskbiochem SA, including CleanCare, No Germ, Lavar Gel, Saniderm, and The Good Gel.

Why Did They Contain Methanol?

Given how dangerous methanol is to skin, understandably, consumers would wonder why these products would be manufactured using it, and whether this was a mistake or if manufacturers knew about the dangers and failed to warn the public about it. According to the FDA, the products are labeled as containing ethanol when in fact they contain methanol instead, indicating that these manufacturers did in fact engage in fraud. As a result, not only could they face defective product lawsuits, but claims related to deceptive labeling of their products as well.

Can Consumers Sue?

In many instances, class action lawsuits are an appropriate way to address deceptive, dangerous, mislabeled products like these because these products are all labeled the same and have similar effects on all consumers. Companies selling hand sanitizer products made with methanol instead of ethanol profited off of consumers seeking to purchase hand sanitizers specifically made with ethanol due to recommendations from agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, all while financially profiting off of including methanol as an ingredient instead, which also gave them an unfair advantage over other companies that did not fraudulently manufacture their products.

If You Have Been Affected by A Toxic Hand Sanitizer Injury or Another Defective Product, Contact A Florida Defective Product Lawyer

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective product and you live in Florida, you may have a claim for monetary compensation. The first step is to consult an experienced Tampa defective product attorney to find out what your options are. Our team at Mark H. Wright, PLLC has been successfully representing victims of product injuries for years. Contact us today to find out more.

Resources:

fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-advises-consumers-not-use-hand-sanitizer-products-manufactured-eskbiochem

miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article244501982.html

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/another-federal-court-finds-amazon-liable-for-defective-products-sold-by-third-parties-on-its-website/

However, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently held that Amazon could be held liable as a seller under its state product liability statute in McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc. While the court‘s analysis is based on Texas law specifically, the ruling still places another dent in Amazon’s armor, opening the door to additional potential rulings and product liability lawsuits to be brought against the corporate giant in connection with products sold on its website by third-party sellers.

The Case

In this particular case, a third-party seller company in China sold a remote control on Amazon.com through its “Fulfillment by Amazon” service, and the remote ended up causing permanent injuries to a small child when the battery fell out and was ingested by the child. The child’s family filed lawsuit against the third-party seller and Amazon for breach of implied warranties, negligence, and strict liability, but the foreign third-party seller did not respond, and Amazon argued (as it has in other cases) that it cannot be considered a seller under the state product liability statute and that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

How Would Florida Courts Rule?

Product liability claims brought by injured plaintiffs come down to what the statute allows for and how it defines a seller. Most state product liability statutes are similarly worded and, in general, allow for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and similar claims to be brought against manufacturers and sellers for damages arising out of injury, death, property damage, etc. caused by a defective product. For example, Florida’s statute says just that; that a civil action may be brought for damages caused by the manufacture, construction, design, preparation, assembly, etc. of a product.

How these laws define a “seller” is also very important, especially when it comes to the question of whether Amazon specifically is liable because it first has to be considered to be a “seller.” Texas law defines a seller as a party engaged in the business of distributing or otherwise placing a product in the stream of commerce for commercial purposes. In the McMillan case, the court determined that Amazon was a “seller” under the law because it was directly involved in and exerted significant control over the sale of the product, including all associated fees and payments. Florida’s law does not include a definition of seller, and this exact issue has not yet been litigated in the state, indicating that Florida courts could very well be influenced by what other courts have decided when it comes to Amazon, and McMillan suggests that Amazon will be designated to be a “seller” when a third-party sells a product. Similarly to the reasoning behind the Third Circuit, the McMillan court reasoned that Amazon was the only means of communication between the plaintiff and the foreign company, and thus an integral component in the chain of distribution.

The court also dismissed Amazon’s claim that it could not be considered a seller under the CDA, which is meant to provide immunity to internet providers for claims connected to publication of information published by third parties.

If You Have Been Injured by A Defective Product, Contact A Dedicated Florida Product Defect Attorney

If you have been injured by a product sold on Amazon or elsewhere, contact our Tampa defective product attorney Mark H. Wright to assist you in discussing your options and potential next steps for recovery.

Resource:

law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2020/06/03/3rd-circ-sends-amazon-product-liability-case-to-pa-supreme-court/

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/ford-once-again-recalls-dangerous-vehicles-for-accidents-injuries/

The problem is evidently linked to the door latch being defective and cracking, especially when it is subject to high heat, making it impossible for the door to actually close. This is unknown to the driver, as the door appears to be closed sufficiently. However, it isn’t actually closed, and will open unexpectedly while the car is being driven.

Doors Opening While Driving

The current recall covers the following models, with model years ranging from 2011 to 2016:

• C-Max
• Escape SUVs
• Focus
• Ford Fiesta
• Fusion
• Lincoln MKZ
• MKC SUVs
• Mustang
• Transit Connect vans

This Has Been a Well-Documented Problem for Four Years

While Ford maintains that there have been no injuries or fatalities thus far due to the problem, there are reports that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has compiled numerous safety complaints associated with the problem. 

In addition, as noted, this has been a safety issue associated with Ford’s vehicles for some time now, as it first emerged as a serious problem in their vehicles in 2016, and there have been at least two previous recalls due to the problem. As a result, any injuries or fatalities that do result from the defect would arguably not be met with sympathy for Ford from the courts.

F-150 Trucks with Brake Issues Accidents, Injuries, & Recall

Ford has also issued an additional recall for yet another problem that has definitively been linked to at least seven accidents resulting in injuries. According to the company, it has recalled almost 300,000 F-150 trucks from 2014 to 2017 model years due to a leak in the brake master cylinder, which can weaken the front brakes—a major safety issue. According to the company, drivers may hear a chime and/or see a red brake warning alert on the dashboard as a result of the problem.

If You Have Been Injured, You Have Rights. Contact A Florida Product Defect Attorney

Any consumer who purchased a car from Ford and ended up with dangerous, defective door latches can bring a claim for breach of warranty and consumer protection. Florida state warranty law provides for a cause of action against sellers and manufacturers, and plaintiffs can also bring claims when the company knows of these defects, which has been the case for the last four years with a number of Ford’s vehicles. If you have any questions about defective products, contact Tampa defective product lawyer Mark H. Wright for assistance.

Resource:

cnn.com/2020/06/12/business/ford-recall-faulty-door-latch/index.html

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/will-amazon-ultimately-be-held-responsible-for-defective-products-sold-on-its-website/

The Oberdorf case that will ultimately give us this answer involves a Plaintiff who was injured when a dog leash purchased from a third-party merchant off of Amazon broke, flew back, and hit her in the face, leaving her permanently blind in the left eye. While Amazon has maintained that it cannot be held liable as a seller, instead arguing that it plays the role of simply connecting merchants with customers as an “online marketplace for products,” the Third Circuit disagreed, in part relying on a public policy argument in finding that the company was in the unique position of being able to prevent the circulation of defective products due to being the one to receive reports back on these products, and therefore finding that imposing liability would incentivize safety, especially since Amazon customers are often unable to locate the actual third-party merchants. The ruling was contrary to recent rulings out of both the Fourth and Sixth circuits, which held that the company could not be held liable as a seller under state products liability laws.

Amazon Fights to Have Third Circuit’s Decision Holding Company Accountable Reversed

However, Amazon filed a request to have the Third Circuit’s decision reconsidered, arguing that it not only conflicts with other rulings, but that the court is essentially establishing precedent with no practical limit.

As a result, the Third Circuit has now agreed to hear the case en banc, meaning that the full court can modify, reinstate, or reverse the original panel’s finding. In June, it sent the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking that it weigh in; specifically pointing out that this is a case of first impression and an issue of substantial public importance and, as a result, knowing how the Court would rule regarding whether the Second Restatement of Torts (§ 402A) applies to Amazon would be instrumental.

Still, The Decision Is Already Having an Impact in Plaintiffs’ Favor

The court’s decision could open Amazon up to a flood of lawsuits stemming from items sold on its website. These items represented an estimated $160 billion in sales in 2018 alone. Already, a number of courts around the country have cited Oberdorf in finding that Amazon can be held liable as a seller in a number of cases; for bathtub faucet adapters that caused a house to flood, scooters that led to injuries, etc. Other controversial cases linked to the website have included a number of hoverboards that have caught on fire as well.

If You Have Been Harmed by A Defective Product, Contact Our Florida Personal Injury Attorneys Today

If a company sold you a faulty good and you have been harmed by it, they have placed you and others at risk as consumers, and you have a cause of action to take them to court for it. Contact Tampa defective product lawyer Mark H. Wright today for help in investigating and pursuing a claim to move ahead and obtain justice.

Resources:

ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181041p.pdf

law.com/2020/06/03/3rd-circ-sends-amazon-product-liability-case-to-pa-supreme-court-292-68372/

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/fda-finds-carcinogen-in-some-common-diabetes-drugs-leading-to-dangerous-defective-product-concerns/

The Health Effects of NDMA

A number of defective product lawsuits have been brought against manufacturers that should have known that their drugs contained unacceptable levels of NDMA and warned the public as such. As a result of failing to warn consumers about these risks – even though drug makers are typically aware of studies pointing to the dangers of NDMA formation with their drugs earlier than the FDA is – people who regularly take these drugs can develop bladder, colorectal, esophageal, and/or liver cancer, and potentially other health risks as a result, as NDMA has the ability to affect the bladder, blood vessels, brain, kidneys, liver, lungs, and stomach.

Finding Out When Manufacturers Knew About Its Toxicity

One key issue that plays a part in lawsuits brought against manufacturers of Zantac/ranitidine and other toxic products that harm consumers is to what extent they ignored information on the potential toxicity of the product, and when. When this occurs, injured plaintiffs can bring claims including breach of warranty, design defect, failure to warn, fraud, gross negligence, and negligence.

As of now, it is known that the FDA itself became aware of the presence of NDMA in some metformin products by late 2019 at the latest, and began to investigate US supplies, indicating that manufacturers likely knew before then. While the FDA itself has indicated that it does not have any scientific evidence as to how long NDMA has been present in metformin products at this time, this is something that injury attorneys will typically dig into once that class action litigation is filed in connection with defective product issues like these.

If You Have Concerns, Contact A Florida Product Defect Attorney for Assistance

You have a cause of action against manufacturers and those who sell products that cause harm to you as a consumer. If you or a loved one has been harmed by a product, contact Tampa defective product attorney Mark H. Wright for assistance in protecting your rights. We are prepared to go head-to-head with any manufacturer in order to obtain justice for our clients and ensure that compensation is paid for any injuries, medical monitoring, and economic loss.

Resources:

fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/questions-and-answers-ndma-impurities-metformin-products

medscape.com/viewarticle/931361

myfox8.com/news/fda-finds-contamination-in-several-brands-of-diabetes-drug/

https://www.markwrightlaw.com/with-automakers-manufacturing-ventilators-to-help-fight-covid-19-many-have-concerns-about-potential-product-defects/

While these ventilators are desperately needed, a number of concerns naturally arise whenever a manufacturer produces a product that is completely outside of its wheelhouse. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has waived the requirement that these devices be manufactured in accordance with what is considered to be standard manufacturing practices, which understandably raises additional concerns.

What The PREP Act Does & Does Not Do

While the PREP Act provides immunity from product liability claims at both the state and federal levels to companies producing, designing, developing, testing, manufacturing, labeling, distributing, packaging, promoting, purchasing, donating, licensing, etc. devices to diagnose, cure, or treat diseases that have been declared to be a public health emergency, and these protections are broad, they are also limited. For example, the immunity provided by the law does not cover liability linked to willful misconduct that leads to serious physical injury or death, as well as any devices used after October 1, 2024, any that are used on non-COVID-19 patients, those used for other treatments, as well as anyone who violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Product Liability Litigation

When these circumstances arise, traditional product defect laws would apply and manufacturers could be held liable for any defects and injuries that the ventilators and associated devices cause.  In addition, any manufacturers who are sued for product liability will also be unable to include that their products were approved by the FDA or in conjunction with standard manufacturing practices, and these are some of the best defenses that companies typically exert in product liability litigation.

One way that automakers could try to shield themselves would be to place a use restriction on the ventilators that they produce requiring, for example, that any party that purchases them (such as a hospital) use them in conjunction with certain rules and restrictions, such as only until October 1, 2024, only on COVID-19 patients, etc. While not commonly used for medical devices, use restrictions are frequently used for software, for example.

Contact Our Florida Product Defect Injury Attorneys to Find Out More

Also keep in mind that companies typically have comprehensive general liability policies that cover personal injury claims that arise. However, whether or not these policies will cover liability that arises with respect to products that these companies do not typically manufacture remains to be seen.

If you or a loved one has been harmed by a defective product, contact Tampa defective product attorney Mark H. Wright for assistance today. Our personal injury team is prepared to fight for your rights and the compensation you need to recover aggressively.

Resource:

forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/04/20/car-companies-are-making-ventilators-but-ventilator-companies-hackers-and-cpap-companies-are-working-harder/amp/