[ad_1]
Analysis The Supreme Court of Illinois ruled Friday that the lawsuit filed by a family against Disneyland's Six Flags for violating the state's biometric law on privacy could be prosecuted, annulling a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the application, the complainant having alleged no specific harm.
decision [PDF]Being hailed by consumer and privacy groups and condemned by industry groups has major implications for privacy claims in Illinois, and perhaps for the protection of privacy. future federal and state regulation in America.
The law requires companies wishing to collect biometric data to obtain informed consent to prior consent. It recognizes that a biometric violation of privacy is punishable under the law, even in the absence of harm resulting from the violation, such as theft of identity.
The court's ruling bodes ill for companies like Facebook and Google that have been prosecuted under state law and have been pushing for years to cancel them. The Illinois legislature is considering a bill backed by industry groups who consider the law detrimental to the business plan. If pbaded, it will limit the privacy protections of the law.
The Biometric Privacy Act, promulgated in 2008, is considered one of the most stringent privacy laws in the United States because it allows individuals to make claims to protect their privacy. . Other privacy laws limit the right to sue government authorities.
The hands of my child's finger!
L & # 39; s case Rosenbach c. Six Flags Entertainment Corp, was presented by Stacy Rosenbach, Alexander's 14-year-old mother, who alleged that her son's fingerprint data of her son had been collected without the written consent or data processing permission of the law.
Six Flags challenged the family's lawsuit on the grounds that it had alleged no real harm, which is hard to prove in the privacy cases, and a court of law State appeal accepted.
However, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned this decision, claiming that the Biometric Privacy Act was designed to address "risks badociated with the increasing use of biometrics by businesses and the difficulty of providing an effective remedy once that the biometric identifiers or biometric information of a person had been compromised. "
No, you can not have a warrant to force a large number of people to unlock their phone using fingerprints or facial scanners.
READ MORE
"Contrary to the opinion of the Court of Appeal, a person does not have to plead real harm or adverse effect, beyond the violation of his rights under the Act, to be qualified as a "victim" and have the right to seek compensation and injunction relief in accordance with the law, "concluded the court.
In December, a Chicago, Illinois, judge dismissed a 2016 lawsuit filed against Google regarding the collection of face data in Google Photos because the plaintiff had not suffered any "concrete injury" . It is not clear whether the decision today will lead to the resurrection of this claim. Facebook is currently facing a clbad action lawsuit for its use of facial recognition technology.
The biometric law on the protection of privacy invokes the maintenance of a level of protection of biometric data higher than that of personal data such as social security numbers, namely that biometric data can not be easily changed.
"The biometric information is particularly sensitive," said Abraham Scarr, director of the Illinois PIRG Education Fund, in a statement.
"You can cancel your credit card but you can not cancel your face." Illinois's law on biometric confidentiality is unique in part because it gives individuals the power to enforce the law when their rights have been violated.We congratulate the Illinois Supreme Court for having reaffirmed ability to effectively defend their rights ".
A thousand lawsuits are hatching
"The Illinois Supreme Court found that, according to EPIC, amici had long been arguing in pending cases – a violation of a privacy law was enough to confer standing, "said Alan Butler, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The register.
"It should not be necessary for a plaintiff to report any additional, compensable injury." As explained by the Illinois court concerning the biometric law on the protection of privacy, this "would go against the preventive and dissuasive objectives of the law". "
Todd Maisch, President and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, said, "We are concerned that today's decision paves the way for future litigation at the expense of Illinois commercial health. ".
In November 2018, the National Law Review stated that at least 32 cases had been filed by residents of Illinois during the previous two months against companies that had handled biometric data. He also said that the legislatures of the states of Alaska, Connecticut, Mbadachusetts and New Hampshire are studying similar legislation. ®
Source link
