A West Virginia judge largely denied Amazon's motion to dismiss lawsuit.

After a spy camera designed to look like a towel hook was purchased on Amazon and illegally used for months to capture photos of a minor in her private bathroom, Amazon was sued.

The plaintiff—a former Brazilian foreign exchange student then living in West Virginia—argued that Amazon had inspected the camera three times and its safety team had failed to prevent allegedly severe, foreseeable harms still affecting her today.

Amazon hoped the court would dismiss the suit, arguing that the platform wasn’t responsible for the alleged criminal conduct harming the minor. But after nearly eight months deliberating, a judge recently largely denied the tech giant’s motion to dismiss.

Amazon’s biggest problem persuading the judge was seemingly the product descriptions that the platform approved. An amended complaint included a photo from Amazon’s product listing that showed bathroom towels hanging on hooks that disguised the hidden camera. Text on that product image promoted the spycams, boasting that they “won’t attract attention” because each hook appears to be “a very ordinary hook.”

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    114·
    11 months ago

    For what little it’s worth… consent is not needed if there’s no expectation of privacy… if your visiting somebody else’s house… Bathrooms- yes, bedrooms (where you’re sleeping,) yes…

    But a hidden camera in, say, the hallway outside, is perfectly legal. Now if the person is a resident (or, like Airbnb,) they have much higher expectations of privacy.

    Also… I would suggest that cameras inside residences generally serve no real purpose at all- and are almost universally employed by creeps. (Exception being apartment entryways… if peephole cameras on the apartment door are not allowed.)

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        54·
        11 months ago

        the camera’s position isn’t itself illegal… and they don’t have to ask for consent for it to be recording. at least, not in the US.

        now, that doesn’t mean they’re not breaking other laws- and that’s really going to come down on jurisdiction. ultimately, it’s likely going to come down to what happens with those recordings; and if there’s laws specifically against taking such images/recordings in the first place; and if your state considers that act breaking normal expectations of privacy.

        definitely not saying it’s right- its wrong and creepy- but private property owners have never had to inform people that there were cameras recording… all those “CCTV” warning signs weren’t about consent. It was a foolishly misguided system of deterring shoplifting… a hyper-passive-aggressive “WE’RE WATCHING YOU!!!” that actually informed the would-be thieves… they’re not actually… watching…