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!

Has anyone tried their battery operated cams? Those things could hear through doors. I don’t know if ring is the same, but the hearing sensitivity on their Amazon brand was not cool since I didn’t want any audio or video from inside the house.