BIPA

Regulations governing biometric data collection, use, and processing have already been complex and strict with the Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) as well as the biometrics laws in Washington and Texas. BIPA, which has a private right of action, has generated a flood of class action litigation. New York City has recently added to the mix by passing two new biometrics laws, the Tenant Data Privacy Act (“TDPA”) and an amendment to the New York City Administrative Code (“NYC Administrative Code”), both of which set forth requirements when it comes to processing of biometric data that expand consumers’ rights and impose obligations on processing biometric data.


Continue Reading New Laws on Biometric, RFD and Other “Sensitive” Data Collection and Use

Fingerprint Scanning on Blue TechnologyOn January 6, 2021, a group of seventeen democrats and seven republicans introduced in the New York assembly a new bill, A.B. 27, the “Biometric Privacy Act.” The bill (available for download here) is very similar to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) which has spawned much litigation, including many class actions lawsuits.  In summary, the bill proposes to regulate private entities’ use of “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information,” which are terms that are specifically defined in the bill by reference to the types of data that each term includes and excludes.

If enacted in its current form, the bill would become only the second biometric privacy act in the United States to provide a private right of action and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for successful litigants.


Continue Reading A New York BIPA in the Making?

Fingerprint Scanning on Blue TechnologyAs reported here on February 17, 2020, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) which went into effect in 2008 has been a steady source of litigation in federal and state courts.

The high level of activity stems from BIPA’s provision for a private right of action for anyone “aggrieved” by a violation of the statute, with penalties ranging from $1,000 for each “negligent” violation of BIPA to $5,000 for “intentional or reckless” violations of the Act.  While the Illinois Supreme Court has permitted claims to go forward for alleged statutory violations in the absence of tangible harm, many federal courts have been more stringent, requiring “concrete” harm for purposes of Article III standing.
Continue Reading The Seventh Circuit Issues Important Decision on BIPA Claims