Meanwhile, Todd Maisch, president and CEO of the pro-business Illinois Chamber of Commerce, issued a statement of concern: "We fear that today’s decision will open the floodgates for future litigation at the expense of Illinois’ commercial health." As the Illinois court explained regarding the state biometric privacy law, that 'would be completely antithetical to the Act’s preventative and deterrent purposes.'" "It should not be necessary for a plaintiff to show additional, compensable injury. "The Illinois Supreme Court has adopted the view that EPIC has long argued as amici in standing cases – a violation of a privacy law is sufficient to confer standing," said Alan Butler, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, in an email to The Register. We applaud the Illinois Supreme Court for reaffirming consumers’ ability to effectively defend their rights." Let a thousand lawsuits bloom Illinois’ biometric privacy law is unique in part because it gives individuals the power to enforce the law when their rights have been violated. "You can cancel your credit card but you cannot cancel your face. "Biometric information is uniquely sensitive," said Abraham Scarr, director of Illinois PIRG Education Fund, in a statement. The Biometric Privacy Act's rationale for holding companies to a higher standard of protection for biometric data than for personal information like social security numbers is that biometric data cannot be easily changed. Facebook is currently facing a class action lawsuit in the state over its use of facial recognition technology. In December, a judge in Chicago, Illinois, dismissed a 2016 claim against Google over facial data collection in Google Photos because the plaintiff didn't suffer "concrete injuries." It's unclear whether today's ruling will lead to the resurrection of that claim. "Contrary to the appellate court's view, an individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in order to qualify as an 'aggrieved' person and be entitled to seek liquidated damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Act," the court concluded. No, you can't have a warrant to force a big bunch of people to unlock their phones by fingerprint, face scans READ MORE Six Flags challenged the family's lawsuit on the grounds that the family had not alleged any actual harm, something that's difficult to prove with privacy cases, and a state appellate court agreed. Six Flags Entertainment Corp, was brought by Stacy Rosenbach, the mother of 14-year-old Alexander, who alleged that the theme park's collection of her son's fingerprint data was done without written consent or the data handling disclosures required under the law. Other privacy laws restrict the right to sue to government authorities. The Biometric Privacy Act, enacted in 2008, is considered to be one of the strongest privacy laws in the US because it allows private individuals to bring claims to protect their privacy. If passed, it will limit the law's privacy protections. A bill backed by industry groups that consider the law commercially damaging is being considered by the Illinois legislature. The court ruling bodes ill for companies like Facebook and Google that have been sued under the state law and have been lobbying for years to undo it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |