Eric Goldman dà notizia di interessante sentenza che afferma la corresponsabilità in oggetto.
Il prodotto era una fotocamera di dimensioni minime che poteva essere nascosta ad es. dentro un tubo portaasciugamasni. Permetteva quindi la violazione della privacy tramite cattura di immagini delle persone in condizioni di nudità o comunque intime.
Il concorso è basato sul fatto che non aveva rilevato questo aspetto ed anzi aveva pubblicizzato l’uso nascosto cioè non visibile alle persone presenti nella stanza.
Si tratta di Distr. sud della West Virginia CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-cv-0046 del 30.11.2023, M.S. c. Amazon.
<<These cases represent variations of the same theme: when a seller promotes a product suggesting a particular use, harms that result from that suggested use are foreseeable. Here, M.S. alleges Amazon approved product descriptions suggesting consumers use John Doe’s camera to record private moments in a bathroom. Amazon cannot claim shock when a consumer does just that. See King v. Kayak Mfg. Corp., 387 S.E.2d 511, 522–23 (W. Va. 1989) (recognizing a defendant’s “advertising or promotional material concerning the uses of the product are a part of [the] reasonable use[s] of the product”) (citing sources)>>
La domanda: <<The thrust of M.S.’s complaint is simple: Wells bought a hidden camera from Amazon.com and used it exactly as advertised. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 22. The causal chain is short. Amazon approved and helped market John Doe’s camera. See id. ¶¶ 8, 18, 21, 24, 26.
Amazon knew the camera’s product description suggested using the camera as a towel hook in the bathroom. See id. ¶¶ 8, 21. Amazon cannot claim surprise when a consumer uses the camera that way. See supra Part I.A. A retailer can expect consumers to use products as advertised. See King, 387 S.E.2d at 522 (citing cases); Livingston v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd., 910 F. Supp. 1473, 1496 (D. Mont. 1995) (“Courts have held that a manufacturer’s advertisements indicate a use of the product a manufacturer was able to foresee.”)>>
<<M.S.’s theory of liability is not like this sprawling opioid litigation. This is not a case of “numerous independent actions by multiple actors.” In re Opioid Litig., 2023 W.V. Cir. LEXIS 3
at *24. The crux of M.S.’s complaint is Amazon worked closely with John Doe to inspect, market, and distribute John Doe’s camera. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8–9, 13, 18, 20, 23, 26. A consumer then used John Doe’s product as advertised and the advertised use harmed M.S. See id.
¶ 29. Yes, Amazon did not install the camera in M.S.’s private bathroom or surreptitiously record her. See Defs.’ Mem. at 6. Wells did. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29–30. But Wells’ use of the camera was foreseeable, see supra Part I.A, and not “too remote” from Amazon’s alleged conduct, In re Opioid Litig., 2023 W.V. Cir. LEXIS 3 at *24. As such, the Court finds the risk of harm stemming from third parties is not “slight” but expected. Miller, 455 S.E.2d at 825.
Accordingly, the Court finds M.S. properly alleges proximate causation>>