[philipwhiuk]

lawful just means the order itself wasn't illegal. It doesn't mean that it's "enforcing the law"

If I tell you to go buy 10 apples, refusing would be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.

If I tell you to go steal 10 apples, refusing would not be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.

Until the court ruled against them, the view of the firm would have been it was legal to require someone to have their camera on. Hence they viewed it as insubordination to refuse.

They are wrong, it's not insubordination, but it's not unfair of them to think it was.

[FooBarWidget]

There is also the word "reasonable". In civil law countries like Netherlands, that actually means something. One can argue that even if being ordered to turn on the webcam all day is not illegal, it is still an unreasonable request e.g. because it infringes on privacy too much.

[afiori]

The employer disagreed and so called it insubordination.

The employer was also found wrong by a court.

[msh]

No. It would only be lawful if you were legally entitled to require him to buy apples.

[em-bee]

as it's only insubordination if they were entitled to require him to buy apples. if i tell my friend or my brother to buy apples, and he says no, then that's not insubordination