Man sues Starbucks over restroom camera

Comments (11)
Spiffy wrote:

It’s not Starbucks’ fault that somebody put a camera there. Also, you have no right to privacy when in a public restroom. They could put a camera in there if they wanted to.

Sep 21, 2011 12:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
donnasue wrote:

i’d sue the crap out of them i dont care whoes camera it was,,
Nothing RIGHT about this!!!

Sep 21, 2011 1:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
crimsondrac wrote:

In a case like this, you would have to prove that Starbucks was negligent. That is going to be a very hard thing to do. THey are going to have to prove that Starbuck’s knew this was going on and did nothing to stop it. Good luck. Though, in this day and age, it is more likely Starbucks will settle this out of court for a few hundrend thousand. The family will have their daughter’s education paid for and Starbucks will not have to admit to any guilt or have to deal with any court ruling and it would probably not even effect their bottom line.

Sep 21, 2011 2:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BAChristian wrote:

Sorry Spiff but you are wrong on this one. If you were in the restaurant area you would be correct but the privy doesn’t count as a public use area eventhough it is open to the public. Besides if you believe what you said is true, then why are the other 2 sleeze balls in the lock up?

Sep 21, 2011 2:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rabidbadger wrote:

Legally you do have a reasonable limited expectation of privacy in a restroom (or similar rooms where one disrobes like a clothing store dressing room or locker room). This is why businesses can’t legally place security cams in changing rooms. However, Starbuck’s didn’t violate this expectation of privacy, the creep who placed the camera did. If you secretly take a cell phone picture of someone using the shower at your gym, the gym isn’t breaking the law, you are.

Sep 21, 2011 3:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cyclonus wrote:

I wonder many people now will be planting cameras just so they can make some quick money.

Sep 21, 2011 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
conundrum49 wrote:

I think it sucks that the guy is suing Starbucks. If it was me, I would be right ticked off about the whole camera thing, but Starbucks is not to blame, you know?
Some creep could easily sneak a camera into any bathroom, whether Starbucks, Wendy’s, a gas station, or any other restaurant or store that offers washroom facilities. There’s only so much a business can do to attempt to prevent it, other than trying to make washrooms with as few camera-hiding-places as possible. I mean, the only way to be completely certain is if Starbucks itself had a camera in the washroom, always watching to make sure people are not hiding other cameras in the washroom, which is of course stupid.

Sep 21, 2011 6:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Medic63 wrote:

Hey, ‘Spiffy”. I don’t know where you live, but here in the USA, it is illegal to put camera in or around toilets. Especially when, in this case, it results in child pornography.

Sep 22, 2011 3:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bobo_9 wrote:

I don’t understand why anyone would even want a video of someone squating on the toilet – or maybe a woman put it there wanting pics of guys peeing, who knows. But Cyclonus is right … if Starbucks pays anything to them to go away, it opens the door to tons of people planting camera of their own, pretending to find it, & demanding money to shut them up. So I think Starbucks has to tell them no deal on this one.

Sep 22, 2011 8:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TrailMike wrote:

The issue is not who put the camera there, but that Starbuck’s knew cameras had been placed in other restrooms in their stores. They then have an obligation to their customers to take reasonable action to protect them. If they failed to do so, or failed to ensure their store managers followed up on the recommendations, then Starbucks was negligent and therefore the family has a case.

For those who believe this is a frivolous lawsuit; what would you have done if you caught the voyeur in the act? And then what would you have done if you found out the company khew he was doing this?

Sep 22, 2011 10:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Logic316 wrote:

Spiffy, it’s possible that somebody who wasn’t an employee put the camera there if it’s a wireless camera. If it’s wired, however, then it’s obviously an inside job. Also, it *might* be arguable that the common wash area of a multi-person public restroom isn’t private, but when you’re in the toilet area of any restroom you definitely have a legal and reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sep 25, 2011 4:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.