The proliferation of the Internet of Things[1] has enabled a dramatic increase in the adoption of home security cameras.[2] In 2024, over 50% of American households owned at least one. [3] But when can your surveillance camera, designed to bring you peace of mind, become a liability? A recent North Carolina Court of Appeals case addressed this very issue and found the privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion applicable under certain circumstances.[4]
Nichols v. Calhoun
In Nichols v. Calhoun, a friendly relationship between two neighboring couples turned sour during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when one of the Defendants showed neighbors a photo of the Plaintiffs’ stockpile of toilet paper and canned goods.[5] After months of bickering about the incident, the Defendants installed a 6-foot privacy fence.[6]Alleging that the new “spite fence” violated HOA covenants and obstructed their view of a nearby waterway, the Plaintiffs sought an injunction.[7] The Defendants counterclaimed, alleging the Plaintiffs also violated HOA rules by erecting a greenhouse.[8]
While the case was pending, the Plaintiffs installed a Wi-Fi-enabled security camera that pointed directly over the new fence into the Defendant’s backyard.[9] The motion-activated device enabled the Plaintiffs to view livestream footage of the Defendant’s backyard.[10]
When the Defendants noticed the camera, they asserted an additional claim for invasion of privacy.[11] At the close of the evidence, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict.[12] The jury found the Plaintiffs liable for invasion of privacy, and the trial court again denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).[13] The Plaintiffs appealed.[14]
Intrusion Upon Seclusion
The tort of intrusion upon seclusion, a subcategory of invasion of privacy, was first recognized by North Carolina courts in 1996.[15] It is available against a party who “intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns…if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”[16] Courts require “a physical or sensory intrusion or an unauthorized prying into confidential personal records to support a claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion.”[17]
The types of behavior typically recognized as actionable include “physically invading a person’s home or other private place, eavesdropping by wiretapping or microphones, peering through windows, persistent telephoning, unauthorized prying into a bank account, and opening personal mail of another.”[18] It is insufficient to allege that the defendant caused a third party to intrude on the plaintiff’s private property.[19] It is likewise insufficient to allege that the defendant disclosed personal records if the defendant was authorized to access the records.[20] Nichols appears to be the first Court of Appeals case to consider the tort of intrusion upon seclusion’s applicability to home surveillance cameras.
An intrusion upon seclusion claim requires the trial court to make a preliminary assessment to determine whether “the alleged intrusion could be considered highly offensive to the reasonable person” before submitting the question to a jury.[21] If so, the jury is then left to decide whether a reasonable person would find the intrusion “highly offensive.”[22]
JNOV Standard for Intrusion Upon Seclusion
While the Court of Appeals has analyzed the sufficiency of evidence for intrusion upon seclusion in the contexts of a motion to dismiss and summary judgment, Nichols is the first opinion to consider the standard for a motion for directed verdict or motion for JNOV.[23]
A motion for a directed verdict is made at the close of evidence, while a motion for JNOV is made after the jury returns its verdict. Both motions ask “whether, as a matter of law, the evidence offered by the [non-moving party], when considered in the light most favorable to the [non-moving party], is sufficient to be submitted to the jury.”[24] The standard for each is demanding, and both should be denied if “there is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of the non-movant’s claim.”[25]
Here, the court announced, “for an intrusion upon seclusion claim to survive a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, must show that a reasonable person could find the intrusion to be highly offensive.”[26]
Outcome
In Nichols, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict against the Plaintiffs.[27] It emphasized that the circumstances surrounding the use of the surveillance cameras supported the jury’s determination that a reasonable person could find the Plaintiff’s surveillance cameras to be highly offensive.[28]
The case highlighted the importance of context in connection with privacy liability for home security cameras. Here, during a heated dispute, the Plaintiffs set up a camera that streamed live footage when it detected movement, aiming it over the new fence and directly at the Defendant’s backyard.[29] These facts, the court reasoned, amounted to more than a scintilla of evidence to support the intrusion by seclusion claim.[30]
While the court affirmed the Plaintiffs’ liability for their use of the security camera, most users need not be concerned. A home surveillance camera, installed in the absence of any dispute and not aimed into the private spaces of a neighbor, likely does not implicate liability for intrusion upon seclusion.
[1] The “Internet of Things” or IoT refers to physical devices or appliances that are capable of network connectivity. See Internet of Things (IoT), Internet Society, https://www.internetsociety.org/iot/ (last visited Sept. 22, 2025).
[2] IoT and the Future of Video Surveillance, Nabto, https://www.nabto.com/iot-surveillance (last visited Sept. 19, 2025).
[3] Ron Gabriele, 2025 Home Security Market Report, SafeHome.org (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.safehome.org/resources/home-security-industry-annual.
[4] Nichols v. Calhoun, No. COA24-905, 2025 WL 2524292 at *6 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2025).
[5] Id. at *1.
[6] Id. at *2.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at *3.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Miller v. Brooks, 472 S.E.2d 350, 354 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
[16] Id.
[17] Keyzer v. Amerlink, Ltd., 618 S.E.2d 768, 771 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005), aff’d, 627 S.E.2d 462 (N.C. 2006).
[18] Miller, 472 S.E.2d at 363.
[19] Maynard v. Crook, 890 S.E.2d 164, 170 (N.C. Ct. App. 2023).
[20] Compare Toomer v. Garrett, 574 S.E.2d 76, 90 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)(“The unauthorized examination of the contents of one’s personnel file, especially where it includes sensitive information such as medical diagnoses and financial information… would be highly offensive to a reasonable person”) with Hall v. Post, 372 S.E.2d 711, 717 (N.C. 1988)(“[W]e reject the notion of a claim for relief for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of true but “private” facts.). See also Weddle v. WakeMed Health and Hosp.’s, 22 CVS 13860, 2023 WL 8369786 at *5 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2023).
[21] Nichols, 2025 WL 2524292 at *5.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id at *3.
[25] Shelton v. Steelcase, Inc., 677 S.E.2d 485, 491 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
[26] Nichols, 2025 WL 2524292 at *6.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
