The Commission noted that Amazon had only placed its terms of service on record, without placing an agreement between it and the retailer.
Thus, the Commission determined that Amazon could not benefit from safe harbor protection meant for intermediaries, which was subject to restrictions as provided under Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 79 of IT Act.
The Commission further noted that the seller was registered with Amazon and had used the ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’ service, meaning that the seller first sends products to Amazon’s fulfillment centers, from where they are delivered to the consumers.
“Therefore, in said terms Appellant/OP No.1 (Amazon) cannot escape from its responsibility under the garb of ‘intermediary’ and safe harbor protection under Section 79 of IT Act, 2000,” the Commission held.
Source: Barandbench
