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.”

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Physical goods aren’t protected speech. You’re comparing laws regarding apples with laws regarding oranges. If you insist on doing that, I have to point out that speech that can cause direct harm is also not protected speech, but that’s if we assume the invalid comparison to be valid.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was trying to compare what it permissible for online entities. Again, it’s a strange new world.