FB pixel

MSGE wins dismissal of biometric data privacy law allegations

MSGE wins dismissal of biometric data privacy law allegations
 

Madison Square Garden Entertainment has succeeded in getting a lawsuit over its use of facial recognition to bar attorneys involved in litigation against it dismissed.

The suit under New York City’s Biometric Identifier Information Code accused MSGE of profiting from the use of the biometric technology, as it acted as a deterrent to litigation against the company.

MSGE deployed facial recognition to identify attorneys with law firms involved in litigation against the venue operator, prompting a spat that became public last January. MSGE CEO James Dolan threatened on live television to dox the state liquor authority’s chairman when it looked into whether the use of facial recognition to bar some patrons violated alcohol sales license conditions.

A previous bid to have the case dismissed was partially rejected in January by the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Claims of unjust enrichment and civil rights violations were tossed at the time, leaving only the claim that it violated a prohibition on profiting from biometrics.

That claim has now been dismissed, on grounds that the only “transaction” that could violate the Code is the contract with the vendor to use the technology, or the transmission of data to it for matching. In neither case did MSGE profit, in the sense carried by the Code, according to the decision.

“As objectionable as defendant’s use of biometric data may be, it does not – at least on the facts alleged – violate” the municipal law, District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote in the ruling.

“The biometric data sharing at issue here is no different from any other tool for which a company may pay a vendor,” Kaplan explained. “To say that a company profits when it purchases a product or service defies common sense.”

Law360 notes that New York’s Supreme Court overturned a previous decision that MSGE could not use facial recognition to enforce its ban against attorneys.

Related Posts

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Age assurance regulations push sites to weigh risks and explore options for compliance

Online age assurance laws have taken effect in certain jurisdictions, prompting platforms to look carefully at what they’re liable for…

 

Trulioo, Sumsub, Alloy net identity verification integrations with payments firms

More online payments means more online payments fraud – and a greater need for advanced digital identity verification tools. On…

 

Super-recognizers can’t help with deepfakes, but deepfakes can help with algorithms

Deepfake faces are beyond even the ability of super-recognizers to identify consistently, with some sobering implications, but also a few…

 

Privado ID and Privately project selected for European Blockchain Sandbox

A project from identity verification company Privado ID and age estimation provider Privately has been selected for the third cohort…

 

Deepfake detection partnerships span AI, academia, C-suite and celebrity content

The deepfake threat continues to spur partnerships, as providers aim to refine their technology in the face of increasingly sophisticated…

 

Jordan nears half-way to 2025 goal for digital ID activation

Jordan has surpassed 1.6 million digital identities activated through the Sanad app, according to statistics from the Ministry of Digital…

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Market Analysis

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events