Amazon Heating Pad Lawsuit Alleges Online Distributor Liable for Woman’s Burns

The complaint is not the first time Amazon has been named as a defendant for injuries caused by a faulty product, in place of the original manufacturer.

A Pennsylvania woman has filed a lawsuit against Amazon, claiming that the online retailer is liable for injuries she suffered from a defective heating pad sold on its website, since the product’s original manufacturer does not appear to be a “legitimate” company.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Khadija Karim in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 21, naming Amazon.com, Inc. as the sole defendant.

Heating pads are commonly used to warm specific parts of a person’s body to help reduce pain or muscle tension in those areas. However, when used or manufactured improperly, heating pads can also cause fires, electrocution or burns.

In her lawsuit, Karim indicates that she purchased a heating pad from Amazon.com, which she used for the first time on or around April 28, 2023.

Upon removing the product from its packaging, she noticed it came without an instruction manual. As a result, Karim allowed the pad to warm up for approximately 10 minutes before fastening it around her abdomen, using the attached buckle.

Shortly after applying the heating pad, she claims it became extremely hot and uncomfortable. When she attempted to remove it, she found that the buckle strap would not release.

Karim alleges that these events caused her to suffer second-degree burns to her abdomen, which later became infected. She further contends that the injury could have been avoided if the manufacturer had used a safer, well-known design features that prevent the product from overheating or becoming difficult to remove.

However, the heating pad lawsuit notes that the product was manufactured by a company called “Yeamons,” which claimed to operate out of “123 Main St., London, UK.” However, according to the complaint, an investigation by Karim’s attorneys revealed that Yeamons does not appear to be a legitimate business entity and is not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

As a result, Karim has brought her lawsuit solely against Amazon, alleging the company is liable for importing and distributing a dangerously defective product from an unvetted and potentially fictitious manufacturer. She claims Amazon failed in its duty to ensure the safety and legitimacy of products sold on its platform before introducing them into the U.S. market.

“The subject heating pads possess defects that make them unreasonably dangerous for their intended use by consumers because of the propensity to overheat and burn the user. Economic, safer alternative designs were available that could have prevented the heating pad from overheating,” the lawsuit states. “As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ concealment of such defects, their failure to warn consumers of such defects, and their failure to remove a product with such defects from the stream of commerce, Plaintiff used an unreasonably dangerous heating pad, which resulted in significant and painful bodily injuries.”

Karim’s complaint raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability against Amazon, seeking damages for her injuries and suffering.

Amazon.com Defective Product Lawsuits

Karim’s complaint is one of several lawsuits Amazon has faced over the sale of defective products from unvetted or potentially fictitious manufacturers, highlighting ongoing concerns about the company’s role in enabling third-party sellers to distribute unsafe items through its platform.

Filed earlier this month, Amazon faces a pressure cooker lawsuit over Instant Pot burn injuries, after a child was severely scalded when an Instant Pot pressure cooker—purchased through Amazon.com—was opened while still under pressure. The complaint alleges that Amazon failed to recognize or prevent the sale of a dangerously defective product, despite prior recalls and known safety issues involving the cooker’s lid-locking mechanism.

The child’s mother named Amazon as the sole defendant in the lawsuit, noting that the manufacturer, Instant Brands, Inc., had already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy amid a wave of similar pressure cooker explosion claims, leaving few other avenues for accountability.

Recent lawsuits seeking to hold Amazon accountable for defective products follow a ruling by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which determined that the company qualifies as a distributor under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), thereby making it legally responsible for recalling hazardous items. Amazon has pushed back against this designation, arguing that it functions primarily as a logistics provider for third-party sellers and should not be held liable for product recalls.

In fact, the company filed its own lawsuit against the CPSC last month, asserting that Amazon should not be required to issue recall notices for products sold by independent third-party vendors on its platform.