The Washington State Supreme Court is set to deliberate on Amazon’s potential liability in the sale of high-purity sodium nitrite, a chemical linked to multiple suicides. Families of the deceased argue that Amazon’s sale and marketing of this substance contributed to their loved ones’ deaths.
Sodium nitrite, commonly used in industrial applications and meat preservation, becomes lethal at high concentrations. In recent years, individuals have purchased this chemical through Amazon and used it to commit suicide. The families contend that Amazon knowingly sold a product with no legitimate household use, failing to implement age restrictions or adequate warnings.
In 2022, Ruth Scott filed a lawsuit against Amazon after her son, Mikael, purchased sodium nitrite from the platform and subsequently died by suicide. The complaint alleged that Amazon was negligent in selling a dangerous product without proper safeguards. Amazon moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it had no duty to prevent the sale of sodium nitrite to individuals who might misuse it. The district court dismissed the case, stating that sodium nitrite was not defective and that Amazon had no duty to warn users or restrict its sale. ([caselaw.findlaw.com](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wa-court-of-appeals/116718708.html?utm_source=openai))
On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, concluding that state law does not impose a duty on sellers to protect against the intentional misuse of a product. The court noted that while the case raised compelling questions about corporate liability in the digital age, it was bound by existing legal frameworks. ([harrismartin.com](https://www.harrismartin.com/publications/4/drugs/articles/45813/wash-appellate-court-says-amazon-not-liable-for-suicides-caused-by-sodium-nitrite/?utm_source=openai))
In response, the families petitioned the Washington State Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that Amazon’s extensive data collection and marketplace control should create a duty to protect users from foreseeable harms. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed an amicus brief supporting this position, emphasizing that Amazon’s surveillance capabilities enable it to identify and mitigate risks associated with the products it sells. ([epic.org](https://epic.org/epic-tells-washington-supreme-court-that-amazons-surveillance-capabilities-create-duty-to-protect-users-from-harmful-products/?utm_source=openai))
In parallel to the legal proceedings, Washington state enacted “Tyler’s Law” in April 2025, named after a teenager who died by suicide using sodium nitrite purchased online. The law prohibits the sale of sodium nitrite at concentrations greater than 10% to consumers, with exceptions for businesses that use the product for legitimate purposes. Violators face substantial fines, and the law mandates clear warning labels on permitted products. ([washingtonstatestandard.com](https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/04/07/washington-restricts-lethal-chemical-previously-sold-on-amazon/?utm_source=openai))
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision could have significant implications for online retailers’ responsibilities in monitoring and controlling the sale of potentially dangerous products. As e-commerce continues to evolve, the balance between consumer safety and commercial freedom remains a critical legal and ethical consideration.