Susan Fahringer Partner

For many years, the most significant law governing biometric-based products and services has been the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act. This past month, however, another biometric data privacy law woke from a long, undisturbed slumber.

Security is one of the key applications for biometric technology and is increasingly pervasive. For example, companies have begun using biometric technology to provide secure, touchless financial transactions, limit access to medications and controlled substances, screen airline passengers, screen attendees of large-scale gatherings, such as sporting events and concerts, secure buildings, prevent unauthorized entry, and detect known threats, and monitor face-mask usage.

New York City’s ordinance could be the beginning of a trend, or simple an outlier, but one that every business in the city should be aware of.

New York City’s new biometrics ordinance went into effect July 9, 2021. The ordinance regulates the use of “biometric identifier information” in “commercial establishments” such as places of entertainment, retail stores, and food and drink establishments. 

The Federal Trade Commission announced on January 11, 2021, that it had reached a settlement with Everalbum, Inc., the developer of a now-defunct photo storage app called “Ever.” The settlement is the FTC’s first enforcement action focused on facial recognition technology, and likely signals a new era of increased regulatory scrutiny for companies involved in facial recognition.

Companies that do business in Portland, Oregon may need to add one more item to their holiday to-do list: disable face recognition technologies in Portland.

Hundreds of COVID-19-related class action claims have been filed in state and federal courts throughout the country.

Companies that deal with biometrics are likely aware of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which regulates the collection, storage, and use of biometric data, including, for example, fingerprints, voiceprints, and scans of “face geometry.” 

This update was republished in The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law (September / October Edition).

Data has been called the world's most valuable resource, part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the new oil—a trove of unrefined wealth just waiting to be tapped. Data is becoming a force across a variety of industries.

Since the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on May 25, 2018, the EU’s Supervisory Authorities have logged over 144,000 queries and complaints, 89,000 data breach notifications and a staggering 281,088 national and 446 cross-border cases.

States across the country are enacting or proposing legislation to regulate the collection, storage, use and disclosure of biometric data.

In anticipation of the profound effect of artificial intelligence (AI) on the world economy, both China and the U.S. have stepped up efforts to promote and regulate the technology.

Google won summary judgment in Rivera v. Google, a privacy class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The case involved “face grouping,” a feature that enables Google Photos to automatically sort and group the photographs in a user’s private account, based on visual similarities between the images of faces in the photos. The court held that any alleged collection of “biometric information” or “biometric identifiers” stemming from this feature did not cause an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. This update summarizes the decision, which may be relevant to clients involved with biometric technology, as well as other clients facing litigation where a no-injury defense may be applicable.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a machine's ability to simulate human intelligence to perform tasks like planning, decision-making, and recognizing objects or sounds. Its use is not always obvious, but AI is now present in nearly every aspect of our lives—from our "smart" home products to our medical care, jobs, and businesses.

On October 16, 2002, the former Big Five accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, LLP, received the maximum criminal penalties - a $500,000 fine and five years' probation - for destruction of documents relating to its client, Enron. Why should this concern you? All companies must and do destroy documents.

Perkins Coie’s CCPA Week
This webinar will address enforcement risks under the CCPA, and how to manage compliance obligations to minimize litigation risk. Our speakers are class action litigators actively consulting clients in CCPA compliance. The topics will include, among other things, a discussion about the various enforcement mechanisms, notice and operational strategies to minimize risk, third party contracts, and exceptions and defenses to CCPA claims.

Perkins Coie’s CCPA Week
Collecting, using, or storing biometric data presents a host of litigation risks. This webinar will provide an overview of the status of biometrics laws in the U.S., the protections that the CCPA provides to California residents and insight into best practices to reduce litigation risk.

For all of its benefits, AI also poses a wide range of legal and ethical risks. Our interdisciplinary team of AI, Machine Learning and Robotics practice attorneys discussed these issues in a series of webinars that will help you understand the business benefits and regulatory risks associated with enterprise AI integration and deployment.

This webinar provides an overview of machine learning technology and dives into key terminology that will help you navigate through legal issues in artificial intelligence. Download a PDF version of this presentation.