Can unionized employees sue their employers in court for violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)? In a rare victory for BIPA defendants, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled they cannot.
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Finds Federal Law Labor Preempts Union Members’ BIPA Claims
February 2023 was a momentous month for Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Just two weeks after imposing a 5-year time limit for all BIPA claims, the Illinois Supreme Court resolved another pressing issue. In Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether a BIPA claim accrues every time a company scans or transmits a person’s biometric identifier (e.g., fingerprint) without consent. In a closely divided 4-3 ruling, the Court answered “yes.”
Continue Reading Illinois High Court Rules “Per-Scan” Damages Can Be Awarded Under BIPA
New York City recently enacted a biometric ordinance that is set to come into effect July 9, 2021. With this ordinance, NYC joins other cities (like Portland) in regulating the use of biometric information. The ordinance may impact retailers, restaurants, and entertainment venues in the city that use security cameras with facial-recognition technology or otherwise collect biometric identifiers from their customers.
Continue Reading New York City Biometric Ordinance Effective July 9, Are You Ready?
Artificial intelligence continues to be a focus and concern for businesses, regulators, and lawmakers alike. As we recently wrote, there was much activity and focus on artificial intelligence and the impact on privacy laws. In addition to legal developments, there have been advancements in AI business technologies by major multinational technology firms, something focused on this post in our sister Intellectual Property Law Blog. There has been an arms race underway by the world’s leading economies to win the estimated $13 Trillion of GDP this field stands to award the winner. In a recent podcast episode, partners Siraj Husain and Michael P.A. Cohen discuss these developments, risks, and solutions that businesses are experiencing.
Continue Reading What to Watch in Artificial Intelligence in 2021
Many have been watching facial recognition law developments closely, and saw that Portland became the first US city to regulate the use of such technology by private entities operating “places of public accommodation” within the city. Of particular concern for the Portland city council was the use potentially discriminatory use of these technologies, and its impact on “children, Black, Indigenous and People of Color, people with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, and other marginalized communities and local businesses.”
Continue Reading Portland’s Facial Recognition Law: Impact on National Companies
The French CNIL (the country’s data protection authority) has released rules for how companies can use the biometric information of their employees. Fingerprint scanning is a popular method for “clocking in” around the globe, and like the biometric laws in the US (in particular in Illinois, which we have written about here), it has fallen under scrutiny in France. Late last year the CNIL issued a fine for a company’s use of fingerprint timeclocks, stating that use of biometrics could not be done without CNIL approval under the French Data Protection Act. Around the same time, the CNIL sought input on proposed regulations, which have now been adopted.
Continue Reading France Continues to Focus on Use of Biometrics
A lawsuit against US Cold Storage under the Biometric Information Privacy Act was recently dismissed because, the court held, the violations of the law were merely technical. As a result, the plaintiff did not have sufficient standing. This decision echoes the other cases we have reported on recently.
Continue Reading No Federal Court Standing for BIPA Violation Without Injury
Continuing our series, we look today at what a company should think about when collecting biometric data. Three U.S. states—Illinois, Texas, and Washington—have laws on-point. The Illinois statute is the most specific requiring written notice disclosing the purpose of collection and the length of time biometric information will be stored. It also requires companies to obtain each individual’s written consent. Texas requires companies to inform individuals of collection and obtain consent, but neither must be written. In Washington, companies may either give notice, obtain consent, or “prevent the subsequent use of a biometric identifier for a commercial purpose.” Companies in compliance with the Illinois law would also satisfy the other states’ less specific requirements.
Continue Reading Biometric Breakdown Part II – Collection
Technologies which use permanent physical characteristics for identification are increasingly popular. These “biometric” identifiers offer clear advantages over traditional passwords and keys: they can’t be lost or forgotten, and they
Continue Reading Biometric Breakdown – Part I