anothername: Then lets hope the judges smack the company so hard it will be less pain for them in the future to be a bit more sensible considering their field of activity ;)
That's not a wise hope.
We have smart everything because
we keep asking for it. It's just another thing we can post on Facebook and brag about. You drank 64 oz. of filtered water today! Great, tell everyone who hasn't unfriended you yet! You ran in the shape of a penis! Oh, that never gets old - let's put that all over our activity feed and happen to mention that it was a 9km course that you ran while pushing your baby stroller.
Companies are only really responsible for making sure that they treat your Personally Identifiable Information (PII) with a bare minimum of effort to security, and in accordance with whatever privacy policy you didn't read and clicked through. Other than PII, courts have very little involvement in smart devices. You didn't have to buy a smart thermostat; you wanted to save money and/or effort, and thought a new gadget would help you do that. You didn't have to buy RoboDildo 2000 XXL, you did it for a lark, or because you thought its features would make it better than your boring old polished meter of wood on a diesel four-stroke.
Information is money; as long as insurance companies offer discounts for smart security systems, as long as smart thermostats can be shown to save a few bucks a month, as long as a smart device saves some effort, people are going to actively want them. Ego is worth more than money; as long as you can brag about having something newer, as long as you can brag about doing something that some other people didn't, you're going to actively want these things. We've passed the threshold where the amount of PII stored goes from "not ideal to accidentally let loose in the wold" to "actively harmful in the long term when data breaches happen" and collectively, we just don't give a shit.