Amazon.com and its Ring home security camera unit were sued by a homeowner from Alabama who said that the cameras are defectively designed, leaving purchasers exposed to cyberattacks.
On Thursday, a proposed class action was filed. John Baker Orange said that an unknown hacker had recently accessed his Ring camera while his children aged 7, 9, and 10, were playing basketball on the driveway. Through its speaker system, the hacker has prompted them to move closer to the camera.
Orange also said that in July, he paid $249 (around Rs. 17,800) for his camera. He continued that the cameras only work when connected to the internet, and are “fatally flawed” as they do not shield against cyberattacks. Despite Ring’s promises of “smart security here, there, everywhere” and “peace of mind.“
Ring’s spokeswoman said the Santa Monica, California-based company did not discuss concerning legal matters.
The complaint registered in Los Angeles federal court investigates unspecified damages from Ring and Seattle-based Amazon and increased security for new and present Ring cameras as well.
It accompanied many reported incidents of hackers locating homes through Ring camera from Amazon, which includes when a man frequently calling an 8-year-old Mississippi girl a racial slur and alleged he was Santa Claus.
A lawyer for Orange, John Yanchunis, said in an interview “A company, which sells a device that is deemed to guard occupants of a home should not grow a platform for likely jeopardizing those occupants.”
Amazon said that it acquired Ring in April 2018 for $839 million (approx Rs. 5,992 crores) in cash.
Orange, who lived in Jefferson County, Alabama, said he replaced his “medium-strong” password and started using two-factor authentication for his camera after discovering about the incident concerning his children.
Yanchunis said, “So many devices are secured to the Internet, and consumers simply do not have a consciousness of how that can be exploited so easily.”
The case is Orange vs Ring LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 19-10899.