FB pixel

Biometrics firms caught in data privacy complaints turn to arbitration

Biometrics firms caught in data privacy complaints turn to arbitration
 

Short of actually winning a biometrics privacy lawsuit in the U.S. states of Illinois and California there seems only one avenue for avoiding scary-sized damages – and it isn’t available to all companies.

It’s not insurance. Insurers do their best to avoid paying on privacy claims, and damages can overtop maximum policy payouts.

There is another better-than-nothing option. Executives accused of playing loose with consumers’ biometric information can ask judges to force plaintiffs into binding arbitration agreements – if buyers have, in fact, agreed to them.

Arbitration, generally, is more favorable to business defendants and, even cumulative, damages are smaller than in class actions.

Voice biometrics vendor Nuance is asking a federal judge in the Northern District of California to force a putative class action (case 4:22-cv-05827) into arbitration.

JPMorgan Chase Bank hired Nuance to authenticate customers and spot fraud based on a person’s voice when they call Chase. Plaintiffs say they did not consent to this, making it a violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act by Nuance.

The plaintiffs are fighting Nuance’s binding arbitration strategy. Nuance maintains that they knowingly signed agreements with Chase spelling out its dispute resolution rules, which lawyers for the software company say cover their client.

A hearing on the question has been scheduled for October 26.

An arbitration hearing has already been held in an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act case filed against app maker Prisma Labs, and Prisma prevailed.

A federal judge also sitting in the Northern District of California has stayed a putative class action while plaintiffs are first forced into arbitration.

Prisma makes Lensa, software consumers can use create AI-augmented face photos. The plaintiffs accuse Prisma in case 23-cv-00680 of storing users’ face templates without consent, in violation of BIPA.

The judge sided with the vendor, saying that the plaintiffs agreed to take any dispute to arbitration.

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Stop treating identity as a compliance step. It’s infrastructure now

By Harry Varatharasan, Chief Product Officer, ComplyCube The UK governmentʼs digital identity consultation is closing, and for most commentators, this…

 

If you build it, they will leave: experts warn UK gov’t on digital ID approach

The UK Cabinet Office’s consultation on digital identity closed on Tuesday, Digital systems built by governments tend to decline over…

 

Shufti biometric PAD clears iBeta Level 3 with 0 errors across iOS, Android

London-based global identity verification and fraud prevention provider Shufti has passed a Level 3 evaluation of its biometric Presentation Attack…

 

OpenID draft spec for extended identity claims assurance up for approval

Voting is open for approval of a draft specification to extend OpenID Connect to cover new features for requesting and…

 

EES troubles ignite speculation of further suspensions

Crowds, chaos and cranky travelers: The EU’s biometric border management scheme, the Entry-Exit System (EES), continues to fill headlines as…

 

UK Home Office eyes suppliers for SCBP biometrics platform

The Home Office is hosting a preliminary market engagement event to engage with potential suppliers for two not-yet-guaranteed future procurements…

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