Judge: Amazon “cannot claim shock” that bathroom spycams were used as advertised | A West Virginia judge largely denied Amazon's motion to dismiss lawsuit

Honestly, people have been ringing warning bells for a while regarding how Amazon facilitates illegal behavior, including:

• Products like this whose purpose is obviously got illegal purposes and even described as such
• Counterfeit/knockoff goods
• Unsafe and/or not adhering to legal regulations in the country which they are being sold (sometimes often faking the certification logos)

As somebody who has dealt with the latter two, I hope this lawsuit puts on enough hurt and/or spawns similar suits so that Amazon cleans their shit up. It's enough advantage that they don't need to stock local stores without them being able to constantly thumb their nose at the regulations actual B&M stores need to adhere to

Amazon's Product Safety Team specifically inspected the camera

Could somebody please explain what this even means?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

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.

An amended complaint included a photo from Amazon's product listing that showed bathroom towels hanging on hooks that disguised the hidden camera.

To the contrary, Chambers wrote that "if proven," the plaintiff's physical harms are considered "severe" because "emotional trauma inflicted during a child’s 'tender years' has an 'indelible effect' from which 'they may never recover.'"

The plaintiff hopes a jury will decide that Amazon "had wanton, conscious, reckless, and outrageous indifference to the health, safety, and welfare of children."

She has also alleged that Amazon "conspired" with the spy cam seller to "market and distribute a defective product both knew was intended and used for illegal and criminal purposes."

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."

The original article contains 816 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!