[turc1656]

No, but it is definitely a solid solution to criminal problems, which is exactly what this is. These are most certainly criminal acts. Why should I not expect criminal activity to be charged as such?

Most criminal activity is done for profit, and that's certainly the case here. For-profit crimes have two solutions. You either make them unprofitable by fining the offender(s) more than they are making from the illegal activity or you give them a free, extended stay at the Gray Bar Motel, courtesy of the US taxpayer. I am more than happy to help foot that bill if necessary.

[throwaway160303]

I'm unclear on something - you've said that these are "clearly" criminal acts. What would the charge be?

[turc1656]

There are a number of laws relating to "unauthorized access" of private, digital information. This would seem to fall squarely inside of those, at least in my opinion. Those seem like the low-hanging fruit.

Going out a bit further, you could make a case for fraud or even hacking. Fraud because they are clearly misrepresenting the product and what it does. Hacking because they slipped in an OS update for older TV's that allowed them to have this feature on models that they never intended to have it on.

Also, they admitted to selling this information to advertisers. That's redistributing information they were not legally allowed to have. There are laws regarding profiting from crimes. But even if you leave those out, there is the issue of them selling information they didn't legally own. That could also come with a copyright violation if a lawyer for a class action suit was able to successfully argue that the owners of the televisions owned that information that they stole without permission. That seems like a tough win, though.

So I think unauthorized access, fraud, and the sale of illegally obtained information would be fair charges to apply.

[turc1656]

Some additional information, direct from the FTC:

"The complaint alleges that Vizio engaged in unfair trade practices that violated the FTC Act and were unconscionable under New Jersey law." https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/02/...

The FTC act is long-standing federal law and NJ apparently has its own strong laws for this kind of activity. The FTC itself states that there are clear violations of at least these laws, at bare minimum.

[0xCMP]

How about fraud? Why is tricking someone to give you a password and using it enough to go to jail, but recording everything someone watches without their permission and selling to 3rd parties not?