Earlier this month a federal judge in Ohio sent Amazon to a jury trial over its Merch on Demand service, and the reasoning is worth more attention than the headline. Weekend Warrior Clothing, a small apparel company, alleges that third-party creators uploaded copies of its designs to the service, producing roughly 560 accused listings and more than 20,000 orders between March 2020 and February 2025. Judge Douglas R. Cole denied Amazon summary judgment on direct and vicarious copyright claims, while dismissing the contributory claim.
The distinction turns on how much Amazon actually does. It does not just host uploads: it creates the listings, sets the price, identifies itself as the seller, and manufactures and ships the product when someone orders. Judge Cole compared that to a print shop that advertises copies in its window and takes a cut of each sale — at some point, the shop stops being a passive provider and becomes the seller. Add that Amazon's system flagged Weekend Warrior's infringement notices as fraudulent and routed later emails to the trash, leaving its DMCA safe harbor for trial as well, and the lesson is plain: control is the price of the business model. The more hands-on you are in making and selling, the less the passive-platform defense will carry you.
Read the IPWatchdog report:
https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/10/15/judge-says-amazon-must-face-direct-vicarious-copyright-claims-over-merch-demand-products/