American consumers have historically been challenged by big business’ and Madison Avenue’s culture of corporate greed. Although some of the more notable transgressions such as those outlined in The Ford Pinto Case¹ and Price v. Philip² have seen their day in court, the future of consumer advocacy litigation in Morris, Inc. the United States remains terra incognita.
Advances in technology are seemingly showing their true nature of being double- edged swords. Recent incidents such as the crashing of Tesla automobiles using autopilot features³ and the hacking of Nest cameras for nefarious purposes⁴ highlight consumer vulnerability to products marketed as having consumer safety in mind.
One technology-related issue facing American consumers is privacy concerns relative to “smart speakers” such as Amazon Echo and Google Home. These devices continuously listen for the user’s voice and are activated by a catchphrase. The details of how information overheard by smart speakers is utilized by tech giants Amazon and Google remains unclear to many consumers. If history proves to repeat itself, then one might safely assume that eavesdropped information is used to benefit the proverbial corporate “bottom-line” rather than protect the privacy of the consumer.
The appeal of smart speakers is widespread due to their simplicity of use and versatility of application. Nonetheless, the failure of manufacturers to clearly state when and how consumer information is utilized is a blatant violation of consumer privacy, yet another example of corporate greed, and, arguably, a risk to national security.
One solution to the privacy concerns raised by smart speakers is the implementation of a program similar to the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program where in lieu of outlining a given appliance’s energy consumption, a notice would be provided outlining a given smart speaker’s information sharing policy. Such a program would be ideally government run and implemented by law.
Another solution, which would also overseen by government, is the requirement of a smart speaker manufacturers to provide a written notice advising the consumer to not audibly convey any information in the presence of a smart speaker which they wish to keep private.
Despite any efforts which might be taken to prevent privacy abuses by smart speaker manufacturers, it is likely that no meaningful action to protect consumers will occur by either government or the manufacturers until it is too late. Future litigation is regrettably the most probable protector of consumer rights in this brave new world of ever-listening and artificially intelligent machines.
¹ Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757, 773-74, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348, 359 (1981).
² Price, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 793 N.E.2d 942, Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District (2003).
³ Boudette, N. E. (2018, March). Fatal Tesla Crash Raises New Questions About Autopilot System. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/31/business/tesla-crash-autopilot-musk.html
⁴ Wang, A. B. (2018, December). ‘I’m in your baby’s room’: A hacker took over a baby monitor and broadcast threats, parents say. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/20/nest-cam-baby-monitor- hacked-kidnap-threat-came-device-parents-say/
Learn More