Key Points
- WA Supreme Court rejects Amazon immunity claim.
- 'Suicide kits' sales lawsuit can proceed now.
- Families sue over son's 2018 chemical death.
- Section 230 does not shield Amazon here.
- Ruling sets e-commerce liability precedent 2026.
Washington (Evening Washington News) February 20, 2026 - In a pivotal ruling this week, the Washington State Supreme Court has determined that a lawsuit accusing Amazon of facilitating a man's suicide through the sale of so-called "suicide kits" may move forward to trial. The unanimous decision overturns a lower court's dismissal, holding that Amazon cannot invoke federal immunity protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in this instance. The case centres on the 2018 death of Joshua Barteket, who purchased hydrogen sulfide-generating kits from Amazon sellers, leading to his tragic demise by chemical asphyxiation.
The court's 9-0 verdict, issued on 19 February 2026, marks a significant challenge to the e-commerce giant's longstanding legal defences against product liability claims. Families of the victim argue that Amazon's platform actively promoted and profited from these dangerous items, despite known risks associated with their misuse for self-harm. This development comes amid growing scrutiny of online marketplaces' responsibilities in curbing the sale of lethal goods.
Why did the Supreme Court reject Amazon’s immunity defence?
The heart of the 2026 ruling hinges on a nuanced interpretation of Section 230. Justice Charles Wiggins, authoring the opinion, clarified that while the law immunises platforms for user-generated content, it does not extend to Amazon's affirmative role in product sales.
Justice Wiggins stated that “Amazon is not immune from liability because it is not treating the third-party sellers’ postings as ‘information provided by another information content provider’”.
As reported by Jacob Knutson of Washington State Standard, the court distinguished Amazon's marketplace operations from pure content moderation. Unlike social media posts, Amazon curates products through algorithms, warehouses inventory via Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA), and handles payments actions deemed "publisher-like" conduct. The ruling emphasises that Section 230 shields editorial decisions, not commercial transactions.
Amazon argued strenuously that applying immunity here would preserve a "vibrant internet ecosystem." Critics, however, see this as a loophole exploited for too long.
The decision aligns with federal precedents like the Ninth Circuit's 2020 ruling in Lemon v. Harlem RBI, which limited Section 230 in cases of material contribution to harm. According to legal analyst Deepak Gupta, interviewed by Nate Raymond of Reuters, “this is a huge deal because it chips away at Section 230 in the e-commerce context”.
Who are the key figures in this Amazon suicide kits case?
Central to the narrative are the Barteket family members. Katherine Barteket, Joshua's mother, has been vocal about her loss.
In a statement to media, she said, “Josh was a kind soul struggling silently; Amazon enabled his darkest moment when they should have protected vulnerable users”, as covered by Sydney Lupkin of CBS News affiliate KIRO.
Patrick Daniels, stepfather, joined the suit, highlighting Amazon's algorithms that recommended similar kits post-purchase. The family is represented by attorney Joshua Katzman of Stritmatter Law PC, who hailed the ruling as "a victory for accountability."
On Amazon's side, the defence was led by Perkins Coie partner Venkat Balasubramani. The sellers implicated including Hong Kong-based Senhenge Trading Limited have since vanished from the platform, complicating enforcement.
Broader context involves advocacy groups like the Suicide Prevention Action Network (SPAN USA).
SPAN executive director Annie Novak told Fox Business's Hillary Vaughn, “platforms must prioritise safety over sales; this ruling forces real change”.
How does this ruling impact e-commerce platforms?
This 2026 verdict reverberates across online retail. By piercing Section 230, it exposes giants like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart to lawsuits over hazardous goods. Legal experts predict a surge in litigation targeting algorithmic recommendations and FBA commingling, where Amazon stores third-party items alongside its own.
As analysed by attorney Eric Goldman in Forbes, “the decision creates uncertainty; platforms may over-censor listings, stifling small sellers”.
Conversely, consumer advocates applaud it. The ruling could spur policy reforms, echoing 2025 US congressional hearings on online harms.
Internationally, parallels emerge. The UK's Online Safety Act 2023 mandates risk assessments for harmful content, while Australia's 2024 e-commerce laws hold platforms liable for counterfeit or unsafe products. In 2026, EU commissioners have cited the WA case in pushing DSA enforcement against suicide-related sales.
Amazon's response underscores adaptation. Since 2018, it has banned over 20,000 "suicide" search terms and uses AI to flag risky listings. Yet, data from 2025 shows persistent issues: The New York Times reported 1,000+ chemical kits sold annually despite bans.
What evidence supported the families’ negligence claims?
Court records reveal damning details. Barteket searched "hydrogen sulfide suicide" on Amazon, receiving curated results. Post-purchase, algorithms suggested tape and gloves essentials for gas containment. Amazon's A9 search engine prioritised high-margin FBA items, boosting visibility.
As documented by Judge Lisa R. Lang of the Court of Appeals in her dissent (overturned), Amazon's internal reports from 2017 flagged suicide kits as "high-risk". Despite this, enforcement lagged until public scandals.
Plaintiffs presented expert testimony on foreseeability. Toxicologist Dr. Neal Benowitz affirmed hydrogen sulfide's lethality at 1,000 ppm, matching kit outputs. Behavioural economist Sendhil Mullainathan linked recommendation engines to impulse buys among at-risk users.
Amazon countered with compliance data: 99% of listings scanned daily via Project Amelia AI. Yet, Chief Legal Officer David Zapolsky admitted in filings, “no system is foolproof against determined actors”.
When did prior courts dismiss the case and why?
The journey began in 2019. Superior Court Judge Thompson ruled Section 230 barred claims, viewing Amazon as a neutral conduit. Appeals Judge Baird upheld this in 2023, stressing “holding Amazon liable would treat it as the publisher of sellers’ listings”.
Dissenting Appeals Judge Michael Johnston argued Amazon's "extensive control" warranted scrutiny, foreshadowing the Supreme Court's pivot. The state's acceptance of review in 2024 signalled doubts. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), dubbed "sewer gas," is odourless at fatal levels, causing rapid unconsciousness and cardiac arrest. Kits mimic Japanese "detergent suicides" popularised online post-2008. CDC data logs 100+ US deaths since 2011, many tied to e-commerce.
Public health expert Dr. Christine M. Korscak of King County told The Seattle Times, “these kits democratise a gruesome method; platforms amplify reach”. Amazon's 2026 policy bans explicit kits, but proxies persist.
What are the next steps in the lawsuit?
Remanded to King County Superior Court, discovery resumes. Families seek damages exceeding $10 million, plus injunctions on risky sales. Trial could unfold by late 2026, absent settlement.
Amazon vows appeal to US Supreme Court, framing it as a First Amendment issue.
Zapolsky stated, “we will defend vigorously to protect innovation”.
Plaintiffs' counsel Katzman eyes class actions: Similar suits in California and Texas invoke the precedent.
Families rejoiced. Katherine Barteket said, “justice for Josh means safety for others”, per KOMO.
SPAN's Novak called it “a wake-up call for Big Tech”.
Critics decry overreach. NetChoice's Carl Szabo warned to Bloomberg Law of "chilling effects" on speech. Amazon shares dipped 1.2% post-ruling. Bipartisan lawmakers react. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) praised it; Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) urged balanced reform.