Comments on: Amazon May Be Liable for Merchant’s Spycam–M.S. v. Amazon https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm Sun, 10 Dec 2023 17:17:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Section 230 Helps Amazon Defeats False Advertising Lawsuit Over Printer Ink Cartridges-Planet Green v. Amazon - Technology & Marketing Law Blog https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm#comment-4083 Sun, 10 Dec 2023 17:17:58 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25768#comment-4083 […] week I blogged M.S. v. Amazon, which potentially imposed liability on Amazon for marketplace sales of surreptitious spycams. That […]

]]> By: John_Levine https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm#comment-4078 Wed, 06 Dec 2023 03:56:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25768#comment-4078 In reply to Ben.

Amazon physically stocks and ships it. This is somewhat similar to the copyright cases against companies like Cafepress where you can upload a picture to which you may not have rights and print it on a tee shirt. Sec 230 (or for copyright OCILLA) are a defense to the web ad, but as soon as they ship physical goods, 230 and OCILLA are irrelevant.

If the advertiser did the fulfilment and Amazon never touched the product, I’d think the result would be different.

]]> By: Judge: Amazon “cannot claim shock” that bathroom spycams were used as advertised | Ars Technica https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm#comment-4074 Tue, 05 Dec 2023 03:04:21 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25768#comment-4074 […] legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered "a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry […]

]]> By: Liz Huxley https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm#comment-4070 Mon, 04 Dec 2023 22:46:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25768#comment-4070 In reply to John Gregory.

Amazon already removed the product listing which was linked from the article. You can find it elsewhere easily, and it’s still being advertised for bathroom use. This is despicable.

]]> By: Eric Goldman https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm#comment-4063 Sun, 03 Dec 2023 19:54:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25768#comment-4063 In reply to Ben.

Good Q, and I don’t have a good answer. Maybe the local view is that Amazon is the “seller” of all marketplace items?

]]> By: Ben https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm#comment-4062 Sun, 03 Dec 2023 19:46:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25768#comment-4062 Is there a reason that 230 is not mentioned in this analysis? I would think it would be relevant here, even if there’s a way to plead around it.

]]> By: John Gregory https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-liable-for-merchants-spycam-m-s-v-amazon.htm#comment-4061 Sun, 03 Dec 2023 19:19:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25768#comment-4061 Easy enough for the manufacturer or Amazon to advertise the spy hook for use beside a door to the outside of the house, to detect intruders (who are unlikely to hang up their coats before ransacking the place). More difficult to think of a legitimate use for a spy hook in a bathroom, surely.

But it must be true that if you advertise a use, that use is foreseeable. “Foreseeable only by wildly overselling advertisers” is not a legal standard, so far as I know.

]]>