N※N

Target denies duty to protect woman secretly recorded undressing in fitting room

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. ecretly-recorded-undressing-in-fitting-room.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Wednesday, October 29th 2025 at 11:35 GMT by MLive
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-29 300 x 168 / 9145 Bytes

2025-10-29 259 x 194 / 7728 Bytes

2025-10-29 259 x 194 / 9591 Bytes

2025-10-29 269 x 187 / 10162 Bytes

The Incident

According to the plaintiff, Ms. Sarah Jennings, the incident occurred on September 9, 2025, during a routine shopping trip at the Target store located on West Main Street in Kalamazoo. Ms. Jennings reported that she entered a fitting room to try on a pair of jeans and, while inside, a staff member discreetly recorded her undressing. The footage was allegedly captured by a hidden camera installed in the fitting room, which is an illegal device according to Michigan law that prohibits any non-consensual recording of a private act.

The footage was subsequently shared online via a video-sharing platform, where it quickly gained traction, drawing millions of views and widespread public outrage. The video’s uploader identified themselves as “Mara” and claimed they were a whistleblower, though no verifiable evidence was presented to confirm their identity or relationship to Target.

Target’s Denial

In a statement released immediately following the viral video, Target spokesperson Karen Lewis declared that the company “takes all privacy concerns seriously” and that no such hidden cameras exist within their retail operations. Lewis noted that Target has an extensive policy on privacy and security, which includes “comprehensive training for all employees on how to handle fitting rooms and customer privacy.”

However, Target’s legal team quickly issued a formal denial of the alleged “duty to protect” claims. In a letter to the U.S. District Court, Target’s counsel, David Kim, argued that the plaintiff voluntarily entered a fitting room and that the store has no legal obligation to monitor every activity within its premises. Kim further asserted that Target has not been directly implicated in any wrongdoing beyond standard retail operations, emphasizing that any breach would have been perpetrated by a rogue employee acting outside official store protocols.

Legal Arguments

The lawsuit hinges on the “duty to protect” doctrine, which posits that a property owner may be liable if they fail to prevent foreseeable harm to visitors. In this case, Ms. Jennings claims that Target’s failure to enforce its own privacy safeguards created a foreseeable risk of recording in a fitting room, a private setting where customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Michigan courts have addressed similar privacy issues in the past. In Doe v. Walmart, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that a retailer can be held liable for private recordings in fitting rooms if the store can be shown to have had knowledge of a violation. In that case, a hidden camera installed by an employee was discovered during an audit, leading to a successful claim for damages. Target’s defense counters that the alleged recording was an isolated incident and that the company was unaware of any camera until the video was posted online.

The lawsuit also brings up the question of whether a retailer can be considered a “business” in the same sense as other commercial entities when it comes to protecting customers in areas such as fitting rooms. The plaintiffs’ attorneys, a law firm based in Detroit, argue that the retailer’s responsibilities extend beyond mere sales to ensuring a safe and respectful shopping environment.

Public Reaction

Public reaction to the incident has been swift and divided. Many consumers in Kalamazoo and beyond have taken to social media to express outrage at what they perceive as an invasion of privacy. A petition demanding a federal investigation into Target’s fitting-room practices garnered over 30,000 signatures in under 48 hours. Conversely, some shoppers defended Target’s position, arguing that the retailer has not been found liable in any previous cases and that the plaintiff should take responsibility for entering a private area.

The incident has also reignited national conversations about the rights of consumers in retail spaces. A recent article in The New York Times highlighted similar concerns over camera placements in grocery store aisles and the potential for consumer exploitation. That article referenced the Megan v. Target case, wherein a consumer sued the retailer after a video of her in a fitting room was posted without consent. The Megan case ultimately resulted in a settlement, underscoring the complexity of balancing privacy rights with the operational realities of large retail chains.

Current Status and Next Steps

The lawsuit was filed on October 12, 2025, and the court has set a preliminary hearing for November 10, 2025. Target has requested a delay to allow its internal investigation to conclude, citing a need to review surveillance logs and employee training records. Meanwhile, Ms. Jennings has retained a seasoned civil litigation firm to pursue damages, stating in a brief statement that she seeks “compensation for the emotional distress and violation of her privacy.”

Should the case proceed, it could set a significant precedent for how retailers manage privacy in fitting rooms and other private areas. If Target is found liable, it may compel retailers across the nation to adopt stricter monitoring protocols or reconsider the placement of surveillance equipment in areas where customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

As this case unfolds, both legal experts and consumer advocates will undoubtedly keep a close eye on the court’s rulings. Whether the outcome will favor the plaintiff’s claim of a breach of duty or reinforce the existing protections that allow retailers to maintain privacy without imposing excessive burdens remains to be seen. Nonetheless, the incident has undeniably underscored the ongoing tension between commercial interests and individual privacy rights in the evolving landscape of consumer commerce.