Wyze Contests “Public Interest” In Security Vulnerability Lawsuit
Wyze alleges a lawsuit filed against it over security vulnerabilities is not in the “public interest,” as the plaintiff alleges, but is a private matter that should be adjudicated in arbitration instead of open court.
The Seattle-based company has asked a judge to dismiss a proposed class action, filed by Rexburg, Idaho resident Bree Hepworth, over security vulnerabilities that were uncovered by Bitdefender in March 2019 and not fully resolved for almost three years.
Her case accuses the company of concealing the vulnerabilities from U.S. consumers. It seeks damages and injunctive relief, including an “order or orders requiring Wyze to adequately disclose the defect,” according to the complaint.
In this note, we discuss the arguments for and against the company’s request to send the lawsuit to arbitration, explain what’s at stake for Wyze, and sum up the status of the case.
Motion *** ***********
***** ******* *** ***** **** *, ****** ********** ******* *****, **** *** submitted * ****** ****** *** ***** to ******* *** **** *** ***** it ** ******* ** ***********, ***** that ******** *** ********** ****** ** those ***** **** *** ********** *** company’s ***.
***** ***. **, **** ******, *** ******* ****:
**** ********* **** ******** ******* * Wyze ******* *** ******** ****’* ***** of ******* *** * ******** ********* agreement, *** ****** ** ******* **** dispute ******* ********** ***********.
*** ***** ** ******* **** ******** instructions *** ****** *** ** *** arbitration *********, *** ******** *** *** do **, ********* ** ****. ********, the ******* ****** ** ** ********** filing, ********* ***. **, ****, **** Hepworth’s **** *****’* **** * “****** interest” ******** **** ***** *********** ***** her ** ******** **** ** *** claims ** **** ***** ******.
**. ******** ***** **** ******* ********** relief. *** ********* ********** ***** ******* only *** *** ****** ********* ******** to ***, *** *** ******* *** is ** ******* *******. ********** ****** is *** ‘******’ **** ******* * plaintiff **** **** *****.
*** *********** ********* **** **** *** bar ******** **** ****** ** ****** “public ********** ******” ** **** *******, according ** ****. *** ********* ****** the ********** *** ***** “*** ****** that ***** ********* ** ********* ** court,” *** ******* ****.
“Substantively **************”
** *****. **, **** ***** ** ****’* motion, ******** ************ *** *** ********** the *******’* *** *** ******* *** “agree” *** *** *** ***** ** service, *** *** ****** **** *** public ******** ** *** **** ****** override *** *********** ***********.
*** ***** *** ***** ** “**** that *** **** ********* ** ********* is ************* ************** ******* ** ********** a ******* *********** ***** ***** *** [Washington ******** ********** ***] ** **** an ********** ** ******* *** ****** interest.”
***************** ******** ***** *** ***** ‘*** power ** ******* *********** ** * legal ***** **** ** ** ** would ** *********** ***** *** *************,’” Hepworth ****, ****** ***** **********. “**** law ** ***** **** ******* ********* to **** ** *********** ****** *** remedies, ********** ***** ******* ** *** statutes **** **** ** *******, ** opposed ** **** ********** **********, ** unconscionable.”
******** ******** ****** ************* **** **** been ******** *** **** ******* ** limiting *** *** ** ********* *********** clauses, ***** *** ***** ****** **** in ***** ** ******* ********** **** users ***** **** *** ***** “*****” to ******* **** *******.
Proposed ***** ******
********’* **** *********** *** *** ******** ** ***** U.S. ********* ** **** **** *** made ***** ** *** ******** ***************, which ******* ******* ** ****** **** on ** ****** ***** *** ******* “unobstructed ****** *********** ** *** *******,” according ** *** *********.
*** ********* ******* **** ** ********* consumers ***** *** ***************, ** ***** of * “*******”**** ******** *************** *.* ******* *****. ** *** time, **************, ***** ******** *** ********* exposure ** ******** ****, **** ** had “***** ****** **** **** * breach.”****** ******** ******* ****** ** ******* warranty, ****** ** ******* ********, ********** concealment, ****** **********, ********* ********** *** declaratory ****** *** ********** ** *** Idaho *** ********** ******** ********** ****.
Risk ** ****** ********
********** **** *** **** ** ********** federal ***** ***** **** ** **** to **** ****** ******** **** *** handling ** *** **** **** ****** along **** *** ******** ***************, ***** purportedly ******* ****** ***** ****** ** both ****** *** ******, ********* **** video *****.
***** *********** ********* ****************** ***** ******** ******** *************** ** Wyze *** ******** ** *****, **** posted * ********* ** *** ******* discussing *** ******.
** *********** *** *********** ********** ******** by *********** ** ***** ***************, *** worked ******** **** **** ** ***** the ******** ****** ** *** ********* products ****** *** ****** ******.
***********, ** *********** ************* *** ******** ** *** ********, and **** *** ********** **** ** could *** ****** *************** *** *** Wyze *** **.
**** **** **** **** *************** “******** some **** ** ***** ******* ******. So, *** ***** **** *** ** expose **** ***** ******* ** ****** the *** ***** ******** ** *** internet ** ***** *** ***** *************** to ** *********** ******** (**** ******* you *******’* *** ****** ***’* **** a ***** **** ****).”
*******, ********’* ********* ******** ** ****** testimonial **** * ******** *** **** a **** ****** ** * **** monitor *** ******* ** *** ******, and **** * ***’* ***** ******* speaking ******* *** ****** ***** *** child ******.********* ******* ****** **** ***** ** open ***** ***** ** *********** *** Wyze.
Wyze ******* *** ******
********* ********* ******* $*** ******* ** 2021, *** *******'* ********* ** ******** down ** *** **** ****, ********* to ********:
**** ***** **** *** ***** ** 2017*** *** **** *********** *** ******* cameras *** ********* ****** ** *** well *** ******* **** ********** **, given *** ***** *** ****** ******** sales.
Wyze: ** *******
**** ********* **** *** ******* *** received **** ******** **** *** *******'* general *******:
**** **** *** **** * ******* and ********* ****** *** ** *** court *******
What ***** ****
****’* ****** *** **** ************* *******. The ******* *** ********* * ******* on *** ******, ** ** *** make ******* ********* ** *****. * judge ***** ****** **** *** ******** in ***** ** *** *** ** the ******* ** ***** * ******* opinion ****** **** ** ***** *********.
[Editor's ****: IPVM added Wyze's response post-publication because we did not receive Wyze's response until after this article published.]