This would not be a crime and instead a Tort because it is invasion of privacy, but anyway, you would need the rest of the contract to determine if the pets could be monitored after they got home and if they agreed to have their information sold to anyone.

Insufficient information would need to read the rest of the contract and evaluate the sensors and how they are powered to determine if crime was or was not committed.

CRIME:
PET PALACE unquestionably crossed ethical boundaries by attaching microscopic sensors to the cats and dogs in their care without clear and informed consent from the pet owners. The continuous monitoring, recording, and sale of sensitive data, including recordings of conversations within the homes of these animals, constitutes a severe breach of privacy. PET PALACE’s actions exploit the trust placed in them by pet owners and violate the rights of both the animals and their human families. By selling this intimate information without proper disclosure, PET PALACE engages in unethical and invasive practices, making their actions a clear “CRIME” against privacy and trust.

NO CRIME:
PET PALACE might argue that the inclusion of the monitoring clause in the paperwork signed by pet owners constitutes informed consent. They may contend that the data collected serves to enhance the well-being of the animals by ensuring their health and safety. From their perspective, the sale of information could be seen as a legitimate business strategy to fund and improve the facilities and services provided to the pets. As long as pet owners were aware of and agreed to the monitoring, and the collected data is used responsibly, PET PALACE might argue that their actions are not criminal but rather a business decision aligned with the terms and conditions agreed upon by pet owners.