Re: Another frivolous case
Signed up after years of reading just to respond to this. You clearly didn't read the article. They didn't search for "hidden camera", they searched for "bathroom spy camera" which is an obvious illegal use pretty much everywhere, but definitely everywhere in the US. They also claim marketing of the item specifically mentioned usage that would be illegal (where someone would hang a towel and be naked), AND the product was reviewed and accepted by their Product Safety Team. All of those things are why Amazon MAY have some degree of liability, and why the judge allowed it to go forward. I'm not sure how Amazon would be expected to filter out all possible combinations of words that might end up indicating an illegal use, but they probably could with all the new "AI" capabilities, and probably before that even.
I do question the idea that the marketing showed usage for hanging a towel in a bathroom where someone might be undressed. They just show a couple of towels, no bathroom, no other items that might suggest it's a bathroom. They're not even obviously what you might call bath towels. That probably will be a strong argument in Amazon's defense that it was not explicitly marketed for an illegal use. That single image is the only thing the plaintiff could base the illegal marketing claim on. It's probably all going to fall apart on that in the actual trial, if it ever goes to trial instead of being settled. I'm kind of surprised this wasn't brought up and used to dismiss the case already.
However, the girl should absolutely be suing the actual "host" as well, either in the same case or separately, but you're right that they went for the party that has the deepest pockets. They should have also gone to the authorities and had the host arrested, as recording someone in a bathroom without consent IS absolutely illegal. I'll never understand why people let stuff like that go so long without taking the action that NEEDS to be taken, then after the statute of limitations has passed they come forward and just use a lawsuit, but I don't understand a lot of human behavior. I get that they're in Brazil, but they had plenty of time to take action, and I wonder how it ended up sitting for so long but eventually going to lawyers and a lawsuit. Did they talk to a lawyer early on? Sit on it for a long time then finally make a decision to talk to a lawyer?
As someone else said, such devices may have legitimate uses, but the illegitimate uses may be so overwhelmingly bad and so much higher a percentage of the sales as to justify making them illegal, but it's unlikely this will happen.
Some states in the US require two-party consent for recording of telecommunications, though West Virginia isn't one of them. This needs to be expanded to video recording and made a national law. I see no reason that you should be able to make a video recording of someone without consent, but just recording their voice can be illegal.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
