FB pixel

Apple wins US biometric privacy case on appeal

On-device data does not trigger BIPA requirements
Apple wins US biometric privacy case on appeal
 

In a biometrics-bound lawsuit decision more noteworthy for the name of its defendant than precedent, Apple has prevailed in a state of Illinois Biometrics Information Privacy Act case.

A state appellate court just before Christmas said that Apple does not violate BIPA by offering owners of its mobile devices the ability to unlock the operating system using their fingerprint or face.

The case was brought by David Barnett, Ethel Burr and Michael Henderson in Cook County Circuit Court. It was dismissed in January 2022 and appealed, according to legal news publication Cook County (Ill.) Record.

The matter could still be heard by the state supreme court. There also is an outside chance that a case can be made that software updates by Apple confer some ownership or control. This was not decided here.

It is not a shocking appellate decision and likely will have zero impact on other BIPA cases in the works. If anything, the decision shows businesses how to comply with the law and still legally sell biometric features and services.

Apple never collected, stored or managed the data collected by Touch ID and Face ID, functions that protect mobile Apple products from illicit access. Device owners do the scanning (or they can choose to use other access-control features) and the biometric data is stored nowhere but on their device.

Apple has no role in how the biometrics are managed, including when they are deleted.

The case could allow biometric technology providers like FaceTec, which provides algorithms to clients to process data on their own servers, to argue that they are not subject to BIPA’s requirements. The ruling could also protect on-device implementations such as those based on FIDO.

In every successful BIPA case to date, one or more companies required a person to be biometrically scanned, stored the data, used it for profit, managed the data (including sharing and/or selling it) or all of the above. They did not, however, get express permission to scan and manage or clearly state their intensions for the information or their policies for managing the data.

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

UK to launch spending, delivery inquiry into national digital identity scheme

The UK’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has announced an inquiry into digital ID in Britain. A government release says the…

 

Togo issues 6M unique numbers as MOSIP-based digital ID project progresses

Figures from the Togolese government indicate that at least six million people have already been issued a Unique Identification Number…

 

Norway, Turkiye, Malaysia pursue social media age restriction

Norway plans to introduce age restrictions for social media platforms before the end of 2026. A release from the Norwegian…

 

AI regulation set to become US midterm battleground

The fight over AI regulation in Congress is becoming less a conventional technology policy debate than a struggle over who…

 

World ID makes case for enterprise-scale authentication, but some aren’t buying it

Despite being banned or under regulatory enforcement in jurisdictions including Spain, Germany, Brazil, Hong Kong, Portugal, Kenya and South Korea,…

 

UK wrestles with age threshold, age assurance for social media sites

Will the UK put age restrictions on social media? A new research briefing looks at the various arguments and developments…

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Biometric Market Analysis and Buyer's Guides

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events