FB pixel

AGs from 22 states and DC oppose Clearview’s biometric data privacy settlement

AGs from 22 states and DC oppose Clearview’s biometric data privacy settlement
 

A novel settlement of a class action biometric data privacy lawsuit by Clearview AI that would give a stake in the company to claimants is being challenged on its way to the finish line by nearly half of the states in the U.S.

The Attorneys General of 22 states and the District of Columbia have filed a motion for leave to file an Amici Curiae brief to explain their opposition to the settlement to U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman.

Vermont, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington.

The settlement was agreed to in June, and would give the class a 23 percent share in the company, which could be worth nearly $52 million in the case of a sale at a $225 million valuation reported at the time. It also includes an opportunity to claim a 17 percent share of Clearview’s revenue over the next two years.

Coleman gave the agreement preliminary approval on June 21, and plans to hold a hearing on Monday, December 16 to consider the Amici Curiae request.

The state AGs argue that the settlement does not provide injunctive relief – in other words, a mechanism to prevent the continuation of the harm cited — and therefore “is not fair, reasonable, and adequate.”  The plaintiffs also “failed to make a sufficient showing for why the highly unusual and speculative monetary recovery is adequate here.”

The filing also criticizes the 39 percent cut that goes to plaintiff’s attorneys under the agreement.

“The information and perspective that Amici States offer is critical to understanding the continued risk the proposed settlement poses to consumers,” the AGs argue.

Clearview has filed a motion to have the Amici Curiae briefs barred, on grounds that it is not timely, as the deadline for objections has passed. The states say the deadline does not apply to them, as they are not class members.

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…

 

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…

 

ICE seeks AI platform to analyze billions of investigative records

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is exploring a centralized investigative platform that would place generative AI on top of…

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