Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered “a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon,” because “the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell.” That could prevent completely legal uses of cameras designed to look like clothes hooks, Goldman wrote, such as hypothetical in-home surveillance uses.
It depends. This case is brought against Amazon because the plaintiff was specifically (allegedly) injured by a product sold by Amazon. The judge/jury might find that Amazon’s safety practices were negligent, which might have a ripple effect on other retailers safety practices. Alternatively, the judge/jury might find the products themselves are illegal, which would impact the whole industry*.
* So technically only the court / circuit the litigation is being brought in, unless it’s appealed to the Supreme Court. Then the verdict impacts the whole country.
Yeah, I think we’ve got a “water pipe” vs. “bong” situation here, and Amazon was letting people say bong.
A camera is a camera. Calling it a bathroom camera betrays it’s potentially illegal use too much. There is nothing inherently illegal about having a camera in the bathroom. Film yourself and other consenting adults all day.
Much like how calling to a bong made it contraband, but calling it a water pipe is okay, I believe Amazon will have to mandate that these be referred to as “interior waterproof cameras” going forward.