After a five-day trial and only an hour of deliberation, the nation’s first trial under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ended with a bang. The jury found that the defendant recklessly or intentionally violated BIPA 45,600 times resulting in a $228 million judgment.

In the latest of a series of setbacks for employers facing claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Supreme Court of Illinois held last month that the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act does not preempt BIPA claims for statutory damages brought by employees.

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 deluge of lawsuits brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14 et seq. over the past several years has presented a challenge to companies operating in Illinois.

The Federal Trade Commission announced on Jan. 11 that it had reached a settlement with Everalbum Inc., the developer of a now-defunct photo storage app called Ever.

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.

Companies are increasingly developing biometric-enabled solutions, such as contactless entry and automated temperature and mask detection, to help employers safely return personnel to the office amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the current coronavirus outbreak causing unprecedented social and economic upheaval and suffering, we take a look at the leading disruptive IT-related technologies to see what impact— positive, negative, or none at all—these technologies are having in our efforts to combat the effects of the coronavirus and what role these technologies could play in identifying and mitigating future pandemics.

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).

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

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.

This webinar explores the legal landscape that governs biometric technologies and the latest biometric solutions to global challenges, such as COVID-19.

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.