Two federal rulings involving allegedly infringing apparel designs are putting the potential copyright liability of online platforms under the microscope, highlighting differences between companies that advertise third-party merchandise and those that manufacture and sell it. In separate October 14 decisions, Judge Douglas R. Cole of the Southern District of Ohio dismissed copyright infringement claims against Google at the pleading stage while allowing direct and vicarious infringement claims against Amazon to survive summary judgment.
Both lawsuits were brought by Weekend Warrior Clothing, which sells apparel under the USA Drinking Team brand. The North Carolina-based company alleges that third parties copied its designs and used Google’s advertising service and Amazon’s retail platform to market the allegedly infringing merchandise.
Google’s Automated Ad Model
In its suit against Google, Weekend Warrior alleged that merchants selling unauthorized copies of its designs purchased Google Shopping Ads that appeared prominently in search results, sometimes ahead of its own website. It also claimed that Google failed to adequately respond to infringement notices.
Dismissing the direct infringement claim, Judge Cole held that Weekend Warrior failed to plausibly allege that Google engaged in the volitional conduct necessary for direct liability. According to the court, merchants supplied product information and hosted the allegedly infringing images on their own websites, while Google’s automated system matched advertisements to searches. Although Google established the ad system’s parameters, it did not individually select the allegedly infringing products for display.
The court also dismissed Weekend Warrior’s contributory infringement claim, finding insufficient allegations that Google induced infringement or provided a service tailored to infringement. Judge Cole dismissed thew complaint without prejudice, giving Weekend Warrior 30 days to seek leave to amend its complaint.
Amazon’s Extensive Commercial Role
The court reached a different result in the Amazon case, in which Weekend Warrior alleged that Amazon displayed approximately 560 listings featuring infringing designs through its Merch on Demand service, generating more than 20,000 orders between March 2020 and February 2025. Unlike Google, the court noted that Amazon reviews designs, generates listings, sets prices, identifies itself as the seller, and manufactures and ships products after customers order them. Although third-party creators supply the artwork, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude Amazon’s involvement constituted volitional conduct sufficient to support direct infringement liability.
Amazon also failed to obtain summary judgment on Weekend Warrior’s vicarious infringement claim. The court cited Amazon’s authority to remove listings and terminate creator accounts, alongside its direct financial benefit from sales of allegedly infringing products.
The e-commerce giant’s handling of infringement notices raised separate questions. After classifying notices from Weekend Warrior’s co-founder as potentially fraudulent, Amazon blocklisted his email address, causing subsequent notices to be automatically rejected. The court held that a jury could conclude Amazon had not reasonably implemented its repeat-infringer policy, preventing partial summary judgment on its asserted Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) § 512(c) safe harbor defense.
Amazon separately secured summary judgment on Weekend Warrior’s contributory infringement claim. At the same time, court denied Weekend Warrior’s summary judgment motion, citing factual disputes over copyright validity, including whether 21 designs incorporated preexisting material.
THE STRATEGY: For copyright owners, the decisions highlight the importance of identifying a platform’s involvement in allegedly infringing activity rather than relying primarily on its knowledge of infringement. Under the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, knowledge and failure to prevent infringement are insufficient, without more, for contributory liability. As such, plaintiffs must establish intent to facilitate infringement, through inducement or provision of a service tailored to infringement that lacks substantial lawful uses.
For platform operators, the Amazon ruling illustrates how control over listings, pricing, manufacturing, and sales can become relevant to direct and vicarious liability. Infringement-reporting practices also matter, particularly when a platform seeks DMCA safe harbor protection.
For counsel, the distinction turns on the platform’s actual conduct, the extent of its control, and the evidence supporting each theory of liability. The decisions also reinforce the fact that defeating contributory infringement claims does not necessarily resolve exposure under other copyright theories.
The cases are Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC v. Google, LLC, 1:25-cv-00668 (S.D. Ohio) and Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC v. Amazon.com Services, LLC et al., 1:23-cv-00752 (S.D. Ohio).
Share
