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.”
Well, you just said “it’s a complicated question that is going to be different based on jurisdiction.”
If it’s not illegal in the jurisdictions this product is being sold, then your ‘it’s illegal’ argument holds no water. Hence why I asked you to cite where you’re getting your information.
Yes, it’s complicated because I would have to answer the question multiple different ways. Like 2 party consent states are going to be different than 1 party consent states. And every state is going to be slightly different, with Brazil also being different.
But it seems like we agree: it’s illegal to film someone in your bathroom without their consent. So why the busy-work exercise?
Under what jurisdiction? You seem to be ignoring this very important fact.
Just admit you don’t know whether it’s illegal instead of pretending you do.
Or, you can cite where you’re getting your information like you should have done from the very beginning.
Seems like you’re taking the busy-work route, lol.
Holy shit, are you talking about this case? It’s literally in the very first line of the article. I figured that was just a given. Lol my bad for giving you any credit.
Sorry, you changed your initial stance to ‘without consent.’ That’s a very important distinction to make, because having a hidden camera in your bathroom is not in itself illegal.
Unless you can cite something otherwise.
This is exactly why most retailers aren’t responsible for their products being used in an illegal manner.
I suggest you re-read the beginning of this comment chain to get a better idea of what we’re talking about.
My very first question to you:
And you are saying I now “changed your initial stance to ‘without consent.’”
lol. Classic. How about you just admit you’re wrong?