Search

Over the last seven decades, mainstream U.S. torts jurisprudence shifted dramatically from rigid formal rules-focused on duty and culpability--to more flexible norms and principles of accountability. This shift was part of a general transformation of tort law that can be observed in the case law, the Restatements, and academic scholarship. Recently, however, where internet platforms such as Amazon are involved, courts appear to have reverted to a formalistic approach to limit duty, and hence liability, for personal injuries caused by the sale of defective products using the platform. With a few notable exceptions, courts have focused on the word 'seller' in [section] 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts and have concluded that Amazon is not a 'seller' when it facilitates a sale between a customer and a third-party merchant. This Article is the third in a series of articles that develop a functional, control-based approach to platform liability. It proceeds in five steps. First, we develop the general tort principles that govern liability for transactions in defective consumer products. Second, we show how Amazon, as a platform situated squarely between a third-party seller and the customer, has control over both sides of that transaction. This places Amazon in a position where they should be held accountable as a non-manufacturing seller, where the third-party seller is not amenable to suit. Third, we give an example of how courts have resisted this conclusion, taking shelter in formal concepts of title rather than traditional understandings of culpability and loss allocation. Fourth, we develop a functional approach to platform liability that uses traditional tort principles to evaluate the platform's role in a transaction and apply those principles to Amazon. Lastly, we consider how these principles should apply to platforms generally., Article Contents Introduction I. Accountability for the Sale of Standardized Products A. The Citadel of Privity Crumbles B. Seller as a Functional Concept C. Pretzel Privity for Internet Platforms: Manipulating [...]

The article focuses on how artificial intelligence (AI), algorithms, and big data facilitate predation and mask discrimination in consumer finance. Topics include the existing legal landscape and its gaps in addressing algorithmic discrimination, the challenges of applying disparate impact analysis and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) doctrines to algorithmic lending, and the need for new burden-shifting rules in tort law to address these issues.

The article focuses on the current practices with regard to aggregation in mass tort litigation, and mentions the doctrinal and normative concerns raised by the tactical use of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code in the Johnson & Johnson talc bankruptcy case of In re Purdue Pharma.

The history of consumer goods and consumer credit markets presents an anomaly: market transactions for consumer goods and credit transactions evolved in tandem, from face-to-face and bespoke to standardized and widely distributed; the law governing these twin "product" markets has not. With consumer goods, the Uniform Commercial Code codifies implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and the common law of tort provides strict liability for defective products. By contrast, with consumer finance contracts, borrowers enjoy scant common law protection, even though both consumer goods and consumer contracts may be dangerously defective "products." This Article reconsiders the traditional, all-or-nothing choice between tort and contract law to govern injury from different sorts of consumer products. It argues for a symmetric treatment of defective consumer goods and consumer financial products, by enlisting the tort-like doctrines in the common law of contract: the doctrines of unconscionability; good faith; and warranty. The terms of an adhesive financial contract can and should be interpreted in light of an implied warranty that the contract-as-product is as described. The defense of unconscionability should be strengthened to enable enhanced scrutiny of terms that fundamentally undermine contractual products. Its procedural prong should be satisfied by the adhesive nature of the terms, without additional proof of the circumstances of a consumer's surprise about the contents of the contract. The substantive prong should be informed by implied obligations of good faith and the implication that this contract-as-product is fit for ordinary and particular purposes--that it is faithful to the underlying transaction. Attempts by lenders to disclaim implied warranties or obligations of good faith should be viewed as prima facie unconscionable. In this way, the law governing consumer-contracts-as-products would serve the same function as the product liability and warranty laws that govern consumer-goods-as-products. Reconciliation of these laws would ensure that financial contracts are fit for their ordinary purposes as loans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) instruments include the Model Law on Insolvency Related Judgments (MLJ), and the Model Law on the Insolvency of Enterprise Groups (MLEG). It mentions join the existing Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (MLCBI) and the Legislative Guide on Insolvency. It also mentions creditors, may choose a jurisdiction for strategic reasons distinct from either value maximization.