In McCarthy v. Amazon, Ninth Circuit Allows “Suicide Kit” Lawsuits Against Amazon to Proceed

On March 12, 2026, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a negligence and products liability lawsuit against Amazon for its role in selling (and promoting) toxic chemicals and related products to teenagers may proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage. EPIC submitted an amicus brief in the case explaining that Amazon’s powerful consumer surveillance systems contradicted the company’s assertion that it had no way to know if vulnerable users were looking at products meant to enable suicide.

The case, McCarthy v. Amazon, was brought by surviving family members of a teen who tragically killed himself with toxic chemicals purchased through Amazon. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon directed potential buyers of these chemicals to other products that would assist in suicide, including a suicide instruction book and drugs to prevent life-saving vomiting.

Amazon attempted to dismiss the suit, arguing it could not be held liable for the teens’ deaths because the suicides constituted a superseding cause and Amazon did not have a duty to prevent them. Among other things, Amazon argued it did not know the teens were likely to use this product for suicide, which contradicted the fact that families warned Amazon of the deaths for years, Congresspeople sent Amazon letters alerting them to the dangers, and more.

As EPIC explained in our amicus brief, Amazon’s extensive data collection on its users gives them greater insights into how users are likely to use products. Amazon should not be permitted to use its extensive consumer surveillance capabilities only for its own gain while disclaiming any responsibility to keep its users safe from egregious, predictable harms.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed is a step in the right direction. The court recognized that, under Washington law, suicide does not necessarily preclude claims under the Washington Products Liability Act, and the plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. That means the case will now go to discovery so the lower court can evaluate the facts of whether Amazon had a duty to users, breached its duty, and that the breach caused the death.

This is just one of a few different suits against Amazon for its alleged role in enabling teen suicide through these chemicals. Recently, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in Scott/Viglis v. Amazon. Together, these cases signal that Amazon cannot avoid having to defend itself in court when its actions allegedly harm users.

EPIC regularly submits amicus briefs in lawsuits seeking to hold tech companies liable for algorithms that exploit the huge amounts of data they collect and store on consumers.