The expansion of online markets has confused the appointment of the person responsible for the damage caused by the defective goods. The main issue is the lack of a criterion for separating mediation from the effective intervention of the market manager in the supply of goods. The aim of this study is to develop a three-stage test for the civil liability of the market manager in Iranian law. The research method is done with a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach and is based on the laws of Iran and the elected votes of the United States (Oberdorf, Bolger, Fox, McMillan). Seven operational indicators (identity of the contracting party, ownership/seizure, receipt of funds, warehousing and sending, reference management, guarantee of goods, possibility of identifying the seller) are examined in the cases and measured by Iranian rules.The findings are based on the fact that the title" platform " alone is neither responsible nor exempt. In Iranian law, three questions should be evaluated separately: the contractual position of the platform (brokerage/right of action), the inclusion of the description of the "supplier" of the subject of the consumer protection law, and the realization of the organs of civil responsibility. The American vote is not the same; Bolger accepted responsibility for the particular situation, McMillan did not consider Amazon to be a seller under the Texas law, and the initial vote of Oberdorf was violated after the reconsideration. As a result of the research achievement, the presentation of a three-stage test and a table of demonstrable indicators for evaluating each transaction. It is proposed to specify the duties of disclosing the identity of the seller, maintaining records and the limits of responsibility of markets with effective intervention in special regulations. Solidarity liability is proposed as a legal proposal not an automatic result is the expense of receiving money or sending goods.