Biometric data privacy lawsuit against Amazon, Starbucks mostly thrown out

A lawsuit against a pair of retail titans in New York City over alleged violations of biometric data protection rules has been mostly dismissed.

The case was filed against Amazon and Starbucks a year ago under NYC’s Biometric Identifier Information Law (BII Law), and relates to the use of the former’s Go palm biometrics scanners. Plaintiffs accused the retailers of failing to provide proper notice that they were collecting biometrics, and accused Starbucks of sharing customer biometrics for profit.

Ricardo S. Martinez, a Federal Court judge for the Western District of Washington, ruled that a claim of unjust enrichment should be heard, but all other claims, including all claims against Starbucks, have been tossed.

The combined Starbucks and Amazon Just Walk Out store, launched in 2021, and the four named plaintiffs made purchases at it. They allege adequate signage was not present, and Amazon replied that its technology did not trigger the legal obligation they refer to. The company posted a notice anyway, but plaintiffs said it was inadequate, since it referred only to palm biometrics, not any other identifier used by the automated retail store.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs consented to use the technology, but the judge sided with plaintiffs on the issue of standing under Article III, because the statute does not excuse businesses from their notice obligation. Plaintiffs did not provide pre-suit notice to Amazon and Starbucks of their intent to sue over the lack of signage, however. The judge dismissed the notice claim, therefore, as New York’s law gives businesses the chance to correct any failure on that front before being taken to court.

The accusation that the companies profit by sharing biometric data with third-party partners like Panera and T-Mobile Stadium has also been dismissed. Plaintiffs name Whole Foods as a third-party to Amazon, but as a subsidiary it is not. Further, Starbucks does not profit in the literal sense meant by the law from Amazon’s collection of biometric identifiers.

The unjust enrichment claim by plaintiff Arjun Dhawan survives, but as he did not purchase anything, it will have to be argued based on the stores having been enriched by his presence in the store, as he claims he would not have entered it if he had known biometric identifiers were collected inside.

Article Topics

Amazon  |  BII Law  |  biometric data  |  biometric identifiers  |  biometrics  |  lawsuits  |  New York City  |  retail biometrics