Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

Post by oceanplexian » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

grobbyy wrote: post #72

Pxtl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I'm quite tired of hearing "it's not our fault that toys full of lead were sold on our storefront and stored, fulfilled, and shipped from our warehouse in boxes bearing our logo! When we said that we 'recommend' the product, we meant, like, algorithmically, not for realsies. We had nothing to do with these products! It's all XGZDoo, a company we kicked off the store. And now would you like to buy any products fr…

I like having a Wild West, but it should be clearly advertised as such. AliExpress and eBay are clearly Wild West platforms and I appreciate them. Getting scammed on Amazon is different. Amazon should be fully liable since very sophisticated customers can be confused by commingling, marketplace settlers, algorithmic recommendations, etc. all designed to look legitimate to the unwary while being completely unsafe. I s…

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

graphe wrote: post #77

chickenpotpie wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't of potential illegal use, it's an issue of explicit illegal use. The camera description specifically describes how it can be used for illegal purposes. There's a huge difference between selling "stump remover" and "spouse poison" even if they're the same chemical.

Semantics. Besides, spying isn't illegal. It could be used for porn. They get rid of the word spy on the camera, amazon gets a fine and this will now this happen hidden under the surface. It's semantics. What's the real solution to hidden cameras that spy on victims undressing?

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #60

pixl97 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is a pretty poor argument. Simply put anyone coming after your product can submit a completely unrealistic set of abuses they could do with your product whereas your products normal uses may only cover a few particular tasks. If you (the state) doesn't want a product on Amazon, you should be required to show meaningful evidence the product can both be harmful and is against the law to sell in your jurisdicti…

Yes, but that pretty much proves the person is not acting in good faith. normal use of spycam -> spying. normal use of beer bottle -> holding beer.

Post by JohnFen » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

voytec wrote: post #95

Sanzig wrote: post #13

Good. Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from dodgy products sold by third party sellers (uncertified electrical equipment, scam flash drives/SSDs, spycams, etc) and then turn around and blame the marketplace sellers when the inevitable happens. Unlike eBay, Amazon goes to great lengths to sow confusion about what it sells versus its marketplace participants. The average user thinks that when they…

> Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from dodgy products sold by third party sellers (...) and then turn around and blame the marketplace sellers when the inevitable happens. They've also been happy with making it harder for the customer to choose a particular seller (especially one w/o Amazon Storefront site)

Post by praptak » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 10:05 PM UTC

0xEFF wrote: post #104

gnfargbl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link doesn't mention anything about it being a "bathroom spy camera". It was sold as a nanny cam which is really a legitimate, if slightly distasteful, function. There is an image of it shown with towels on the hook, but it isn't stated or implied that it should be used to spy on people as they use the bathroom. I'm a big fan of holding tech companies to the same standards as other industries, but not a big fan…

It literally says spy cam in the product title.