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

 

Foundational ID and biometric binding underpin digital trust

Biometrics fundamentals and foundational ID are considerations at the very beginning of the identity lifecycle that are sometimes overlooked. If…

 

ICE withdraws $125M sole-source Thomson Reuters surveillance data deal

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has withdrawn plans to award Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS) a five-year, $125 million…

 

TECH5 posts fastest search time in NIST IREX 10 iris evaluation

TECH5 has recorded the fastest search time in the current two-eye developer table of the National Institute of Standards and…

 

OCR Studio updates AI MRZ scanning for difficult remote ID captures

OCR Studio has updated its on-device software to scan the machine readable zones (MRZs) of passports, identity cards, visas, and…

 

Beyond accuracy: What NIST’s latest age estimation results mean for age assurance

The latest results of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)’s Face Analysis Technology Evaluation Age Estimation & Verification…

 

Latest round of BixeLab biometrics evaluations include Level 3 PAD, IAD tests

A pair of facial recognition providers have passed Level 3 independent biometric Presentation Attack Detection (PAD) and Injection Attack Detection…

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Market Intelligence

Featured Company

Biometric Update Podcast

Most Read This Week

White Papers

Latest Webinars

Biometrics Industry Events