Make a wish and see the legal difference between Amazon and Aladdin’s Oil Lamp

I must be honest. I love Amazon.  Who wouldn’t? 

Anyone who remembers Aladdin will remember those days when you wish you have a genie in your home somewhere.  Amazon is this modern-day genie where you make a wish list, and the rest will be just a click away, without the weight of carrying around an old oil lamp everywhere you go.  The only difference perhaps is that Amazon will have to abide by the laws of the land but Aladdin’s oil lamp has full liberty to grant its owner any wishes.

As a popular online marketplace, Amazon is known for offering a vast array of products to its customers through third-party sellers.  This trade model is identified as e-commerce, or electronic commerce, which became increasingly popular and widespread due to the development of the internet and digital technologies.  E-commerce has brought to the humans great convenience, transforming the way people shop by eliminating the need to physically visit the stores but providing a global reach for both sellers and buyers.

Yesterday, Amazon came on the news because of a recent clothes hook camera case in West Virginia, America – M.S. -v- Amazon.com, Inc. et al, No. 3:2023cv00046 – Document 24 (S.D.W.Va.2023).  The pinhole camera disguised as a clothes hook was sold on Amazon after surprisingly passing the tests Amazon have for “infringement of privacy”, “surreptitiously recording others for sexual purposes”, or “creating and storing child sex abuse material”.  The advertising description approved by Amazon shows the camera serving as a towel hook with the caption “It won’t attract any attention: A very ordinary hook.”

A man, identified as Darrel Wells in the court papers, bought the item from Amazon when a minor, identified as M.S. in the case, travelled to the US as a foreign exchange student to stayed with him in 2021.  He subsequently installed the camera in M.S.’s private bathroom and filmed her without her knowledge or consent.  M.S. eventually brought civil claims against the designer of the camera and Amazon.  At the moment, Wells is understood to be facing trial.

In response of the civil claim, Amazon denied any affirmative actions or omissions from their side exposing M.S to a foreseeable high risk of harm from intentional misconduct.  However, the US courts have decided the case against Amazon, interestingly one the findings being the tort of negligence.

Should the same case fall within the remit of the English courts, the matter would be considered in two halves:

1. Spy camera.  In the UK, purchasing and selling of hidden cameras are legal, but the users of the camera will be subject to a network of governing regulations and legislations, mostly involving protection of personal safety, data breach and human rights issues.

2. For e-commerce platforms, the law and governance of the country has evolved from the time when UK was an EU member state.  Today, consumer and business protection is the heart of consideration for the lawmakers when keeping up with this fast-paced industry.  No doubt tort might form one of the considerations but will not be the sole consideration in civil claims.

Therefore, if you own a funky camera, think before you act or ring your lawyer.