Proprietary information in biometric data privacy suit redacted
Documents in a legal battle over biometric data privacy alleging violations on the part of Apple will be redacted in places that could otherwise reveal proprietary information about how the company’s on-device processing works.
The redaction was approved by Chief District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel, writes the Madison – St. Clair Record, after Apple filed a memorandum of support for keeping portions of the amended complaint redacted.
The complaint, Apple says, was amended based on “months of discovery involving documents that Apple designated confidential or highly confidential,” and if published in full would give its competitors information on trade secrets about how its face biometrics work.
A section of the complaint under the heading “Defendant’s collection of plaintiffs’ biometric data on its servers” was amended, according to the Record, and reflects Apple’s on-device processing, but argues that the storage of biometric data on personal devices through the Photos App creates a data protection risk.
Apple is expected to file a response to the amended complaint on January 14.
Driver monitoring latest application targeted
The complaint alleges the driver monitoring software used by Bob’s Discount Furniture, beginning in 2021, collected face biometric data from drivers in order to detect drowsy or distracted driving, but without having received the required informed consent from drivers. The plaintiff claims to have been told the cameras were being installed to reduce litigation costs associated with traffic accidents, and that he did not sign a consent form or receive notice that his biometrics would be collected.
The suit also includes an alleged failure to provide a data retention schedule.
Snapchat fights appeal of arbitration order
Snap is asking the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court to uphold a lower court panel’s ruling that a plaintiff in another biometric data privacy suit under BIPA, who is a minor, should be bound by arbitration as specified in the platform’s terms of service, despite having misrepresented her age, and being only 11 when she agreed to the terms.
Law360 writes in a separate article that contrary to the plaintiffs claims of being unqualified to form a contract between herself and Snapchat, a person’s ineligibility to use a service does not allow them to misrepresent themselves and then use the service without being bound by its terms.