FB pixel

Apple wins US biometric privacy case on appeal

On-device data does not trigger BIPA requirements
Apple wins US biometric privacy case on appeal
 

In a biometrics-bound lawsuit decision more noteworthy for the name of its defendant than precedent, Apple has prevailed in a state of Illinois Biometrics Information Privacy Act case.

A state appellate court just before Christmas said that Apple does not violate BIPA by offering owners of its mobile devices the ability to unlock the operating system using their fingerprint or face.

The case was brought by David Barnett, Ethel Burr and Michael Henderson in Cook County Circuit Court. It was dismissed in January 2022 and appealed, according to legal news publication Cook County (Ill.) Record.

The matter could still be heard by the state supreme court. There also is an outside chance that a case can be made that software updates by Apple confer some ownership or control. This was not decided here.

It is not a shocking appellate decision and likely will have zero impact on other BIPA cases in the works. If anything, the decision shows businesses how to comply with the law and still legally sell biometric features and services.

Apple never collected, stored or managed the data collected by Touch ID and Face ID, functions that protect mobile Apple products from illicit access. Device owners do the scanning (or they can choose to use other access-control features) and the biometric data is stored nowhere but on their device.

Apple has no role in how the biometrics are managed, including when they are deleted.

The case could allow biometric technology providers like FaceTec, which provides algorithms to clients to process data on their own servers, to argue that they are not subject to BIPA’s requirements. The ruling could also protect on-device implementations such as those based on FIDO.

In every successful BIPA case to date, one or more companies required a person to be biometrically scanned, stored the data, used it for profit, managed the data (including sharing and/or selling it) or all of the above. They did not, however, get express permission to scan and manage or clearly state their intensions for the information or their policies for managing the data.

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Court rejects deal, reopens Clearview AI lawsuit over biometric data collection

A novel court settlement that resolved a legal complaint against the data collection practices of facial recognition provider Clearview AI…

 

Funding gap puts Sri Lanka’s digital ID project under review

The Sri Lanka Unique Digital Identity (SL-UDI) project faces a budget gap, with quotes from Indian companies surpassing the Indian…

 

Age assurance standard builds out with new draft on analysis of age check systems

Work continues to create and refine a comprehensive standard for online age assurance. Published last year, ISO/IEC 27566 is the…

 

UK government draws legal line in the sand on social media age minimum

The UK government says it is giving childhood back to the nation’s children with its new legislation restricting social media…

 

HMLR missing the net with Qualified Electronic Signatures, says UK digital ID sector

The UK’s digital identity sector is appealing to the HM Land Registry (HMLR), the government agency that registers ownership of…

 

OpenAI requires hardware-backed passkeys for trusted cyber access

OpenAI is requiring stronger account protection for users who access some of its most sensitive AI capabilities. Starting September 1,…

Comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Biometric Market Analysis and Buyer's Guides

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events