ZM and OP, the executive producer and artist of a music album, alleged that Amazon cost them some $50,000 in sales, because the company failed to repair a defective product link which prevented consumers from purchasing their product.
But Amazon countered that the plaintiffs used a Universal Product Code (UPC) from a reseller, in violation of the company’s policies, and that was what triggered any purported problem and loss.
After the Kings County Civil Court sided with Amazon and dismissed the case, an appeal followed. And on its review, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that given the plaintiffs’ concession that the UPC was supplied by a reseller, they were thus unable to show that Amazon had breached any duty owed to them.
Since Amazon hadn’t caused the loss they purportedly suffered, and in the absence of a “triable issue of fact,” the AT2 thought the summary determination in the company’s favor was appropriate and affirmed the outcome.
Think that was music to their ears?
# # #
DECISION