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.”

  • chitak166@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Do you sue gun sellers for when people use their guns for illegal activities?

    What about computer retailers?

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Completely missing the point. It was very clearly being advertised to be used in this way, and it was approved by amazon. It would only be comparable if gun manufacturers were advertising “a drug dealer will never notice you’re carrying it” or something similar.

      • chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not illegal to put a hidden camera in your bathroom, though.

        Just like it’s not illegal to take a gun to the shooting range.

        It would only be comparable if gun manufacturers were advertising “a drug dealer will never notice you’re carrying it”

        No, it wouldn’t. Guns are for shooting just like this camera is for recording. What you shoot and record is what makes their usage illegal.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Guns are for shooting just like this camera is for recording. What you shoot and record is what makes their usage illegal.

          Missing the point. They are arguing that this was being advertised for illegal use, and thus they are responsible. The other poster was drawing a comparison by implying that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for when guns are used for illegal purposes. I’m pointing out that it would only be comparable if they were being advertised, even if just clearly implicitly, for illegal use.

          • chitak166@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            How are these being advertised for illegal use? There’s nothing illegal about setting up hidden cameras on your property.

            Does the product page specifically state that it’s for use on property that isn’t yours without permission?

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              There’s nothing illegal about setting up hidden cameras on your property.

              But there is something illegal about filming people in the bathroom on your property without their consent.

              • chitak166@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                10 months ago

                But there is something illegal about filming people in the bathroom on your property without their consent.

                Can you cite where you’re getting this information from?

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Before I do this. . .are you saying you think it might be legal to film someone without their consent when they are using your bathroom?

                  • chitak166@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    No, I’m asking for a source for your information.

                    That’s why I asked if you can cite where you’re getting your information from.

      • SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        You do realize just cause it’s called a “towel hook”doesn’t mean it only holds towels, right? Also - towels aren’t exclusively hung in bathrooms.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yes, I understand that. What that has to do with my point is beyond me, however.

          • SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’m pointing out there are legitimate places for a towel hook with hidden camera to be located. Something used for illegal activity is on the onus of the person performing the illegal act, not the manufacturer or distributor of the tool.

            If something is only used for illegal activity, then I agree Amazon would have culpability.

            No one is blaming the hammer manufacturer or Home Depot for selling a hammer to the guy who attacked Pelosi’s husband. You blame the moron for being a trash human. Same is true here - there are legitimate uses of a towel hook camera. Placing one in the bathroom is not one of them, and the person who placed it there is the only person at fault.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              No one is blaming the hammer manufacturer or Home Depot for selling a hammer to the guy who attacked Pelosi’s husband.

              Again, missing the point. Go back and read my first post.

    • DevCat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you advertise your product specifically for doing something that is inherently wrong, yes.

      • chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Inherently wrong, or illegal? I’m just going to assume you mean ‘illegal’ because what’s right and wrong is subjective.

        What did they advertise that was illegal?

        • AlijahTheMediocre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          There’s no justification that can be made in good faith for a camera designed to look like a bathroom towl holder. There just aint

          • chitak166@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Okay. Did they advertise anything illegal though, which is what this lawsuit is about?