A recent appellate decision provides a sharp and practical lens on a question that continues to gain relevance worldwide:
Can online marketplaces truly be considered mere intermediaries?
In “Almirón, Omar Alberto v. Mercado Libre SRL et al.”, Chamber B of the National Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters upheld the claim brought against the online marketplace by the purchaser of a television set that was delivered damaged through the platform.
While rooted in a specific case, the reasoning reflects a broader global shift in how legal systems approach platform liability in digital commerce.
The scenario
A consumer purchases a product through an online platform.
The item arrives defective.
A claim is submitted within the platform’s system.
No effective solution is provided.
The payment is released to the seller.
A familiar pattern — across markets, industries, and jurisdictions.
A shift in focus: from labels to function
Rather than relying on how the platform defines itself, the court adopts a more pragmatic approach:
It looks at the actual role played in the transaction
This functional analysis is increasingly visible across multiple legal systems, where formal classifications are giving way to assessments based on economic reality.
The “passive platform” model
Where a platform merely hosts listings and does not meaningfully intervene in the transaction:
- it operates as a neutral intermediary
- liability is typically fault-based
This aligns with traditional safe-harbour concepts seen in various regulatory frameworks.
When the platform becomes “active”
The analysis changes when the platform:
✔ processes or controls payments
✔ structures or coordinates delivery
✔ offers protection or guarantee schemes
✔ manages dispute resolution mechanisms
✔ derives revenue directly from the transaction
In these cases, the platform’s role may go beyond intermediation and become functionally integrated into the commercial operation
Legal implications
Once that threshold is crossed, the consequences are significant:
- the platform may be treated as a participant in the supply chain
- liability may shift toward strict or objective standards
- exposure may extend alongside the seller
- consumers may pursue claims directly, without needing to prove fault
These outcomes are consistent with a broader international trend toward enhanced consumer protection in digital environments.
The underlying principle
At the core of this approach lies a simple idea:
Those who structure, control, and monetise a transaction cannot remain entirely external to its risks
This principle is increasingly shaping judicial reasoning and regulatory policy across jurisdictions.
Why this matters
For businesses operating in platform-based models, this evolution is more than theoretical:
✔ it raises the standard of operational responsibility
✔ it expands potential litigation exposure
✔ it calls for a reassessment of how platforms design and present their role
For legal practitioners, it reinforces a key strategic point:
Liability will often depend less on how a platform describes itself, and more on how it actually functions
Final thought
The debate is no longer about labels.
It is about substance.
And as platforms take on a more active role in structuring transactions, the law is increasingly prepared to treat them accordingly.
This case also highlights how platform liability is evolving across different jurisdictions. At 360 Business Law, our global network of lawyers enables us to provide clear, commercially focused guidance on these developments. Sergio, our Argentina-based lawyer, offers valuable insight into regional legal trends and their alignment with wider international shifts.
Written by SERGIO MILITELLO