FB pixel

Biometric privacy law in Texas close enough to BIPA to protect Match

Biometric privacy law in Texas close enough to BIPA to protect Match
 

Just because you live in Illinois and a company has processed your biometrics without getting your informed consent, you may not be able to sue under the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

That is a key take-away from the ruling by a federal judge in Texas to dismiss a lawsuit against dating website operator Match Group.

Match Group, which owns Tinder and OKCupid, is based in Texas, and argued the laws of its home state should apply, rather than the laws of the plaintiffs’ home state, meaning BIPA. Plaintiffs argued that a choice of law provision which would allow Match to be held to Texas law is unenforceable, however.

There are three criteria for deciding on the enforceability of a choice of law provision, and all three must be met. The court assessed which state had the most significant relationship to the case, which had the greater material interest, and whether the application of one state’s law would be contrary to the fundamental policy of the other state.

District Judge David C. Godbey found that based on where the parties were located, where processing occurred and other details, plaintiffs had not made the case that Illinois had the stronger relationship. Illinois does have a materially greater interest, because the welfare of residents is considered greater than corporate expectations. But on the third criteria, plaintiffs claim was rejected.

While it may offer a different outcome, Texas law “offers a similar protection,” Godbey wrote.

A similar ruling has resulted in the dismissal of a BIPA lawsuit against Amazon Web Services over its use of biometrics in call centers.

Federal Appeals Judge Stephanos Bibas ruled that plaintiffs failed to show that the company’s conduct with its Amazon Connect product took place primarily in Illinois, Bloomberg Law reports.

Pindrop was previously removed from the same case for lack of jurisdiction.

Baker Donelson Of Counsel David J. Oberly explained the key points of BIPA extraterritoriality in a guest post for Biometric Update earlier this year.

Related Posts

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Deepfake legislation up against constant evolution of generative AI

“Deepfake detection in generative AI: A legal framework proposal to protect human rights” is a newly published research paper by…

 

Biometrics Institute industry survey gathers professional insights

The Biometrics Institute is inviting industry professionals to participate in its 16th annual industry survey. The Institute notes that it…

 

Biometric tools shift from control to resistance

In the accelerating age of facial recognition technology (FRT), a growing counter-surveillance movement is flipping the script on who gets…

 

Deepfake competition from FinVolution seeks innovative detection models

Deepfake detection is in the spotlight at the FinVolution Group’s 2025 FinVolution Global Data Science Competition. A release says the…

 

Incode biometrics and liveness detection to power Descope IAM workflows

Descope, which provides enterprise IAM solutions for managing external digital identities, is adding biometric user onboarding and self check-ins through…

 

UK police look at future tech, including biometrics like brainwaves

With technology, what was once cutting edge will one day become the norm. Currently, the police are incorporating facial recognition,…

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Biometric Market Analysis

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events