No, the lawsuit clearly claims that the cameras were activated. Read comment #2 under "Nature of the action" which makes the claim. Also, while Section 23-24

No, the lawsuit clearly claims that the cameras were activated. Read comment #2 under "Nature of the action" which makes the claim. Also, while Section 23-24 is not a direct allegation, it clearly implies that Lindy Matsko was involved in capturing a photo from the embedded webcam. It states that she showed the Plaintiff a photo that came from the camera, and when asked how she obtained it, she explained that the cameras can be remotely activated. I don't see what other conclusion could be drawn from that.