The Washington Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on Thursday finding that Amazon.com can be sued by families whose relatives died by suicide after consuming sodium nitrite obtained through the online marketplace. The high court overturned a lower-court determination that had barred negligence claims on the basis that the suicides represented a superseding cause of death.
Four families brought the suits, alleging that Amazon promoted sodium nitrite listings on its platform alongside other goods that could be used to carry out suicide. According to the complaints, the families contend the Seattle-based retailer had been aware of a connection between sodium nitrite and suicide for years yet continued to make the chemical available without implementing restrictions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling allows the negligence claims to proceed in state court. The decision rejects the narrower legal conclusion reached by the lower court, which had concluded the direct acts of suicide interrupted any chain of liability stemming from the product’s sale.
Plaintiffs say the product was presented on Amazon’s website in ways that assisted consumers seeking means to end their lives, and that the company failed to act despite purported knowledge of the link between sodium nitrite and suicide. The families seek to pursue negligence-based theories under Washington state product liability law.
Amazon and its attorneys did not immediately provide comment in response to inquiries about the ruling.
Context and immediate effect
By permitting the negligence claims to move forward, the court’s unanimous decision keeps alive litigation that centers on an online retailer’s role in the availability and presentation of potentially lethal substances. The ruling does not itself resolve liability; it clears the procedural hurdle that had previously prevented these particular claims from being heard.
The case remains in the pretrial litigation phase as parties pursue discovery and further briefing in state courts. The ultimate determination of legal responsibility will depend on subsequent proceedings and factual development in those cases.