Thousands of Illinois smartphone users are suing Motorola Mobility for allegedly collecting personal data without permission through the use of facial recognition technology in their devices, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Read The Full Article
Key Points
1. Lawsuit Allegation: Motorola Mobility is accused of breaching its arbitration provision and refusing to pay a filing fee in a mass arbitration claim brought against them for biometric privacy violations.
2. Violation Details: The complaint states that Motorola’s devices with high-powered cameras use facial recognition and artificial intelligence to identify and store selfie images, without obtaining consent from users.
3. Failed Arbitration: Despite the petitioners filing arbitration claims with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services as directed by Motorola, the company refused to pay the filing fee for the majority of the claims, citing a previous class-action settlement as a reason.
4. Strict Illinois Biometric Privacy Act: Illinois has the strictest biometric privacy law in the US, requiring companies to obtain permission before using technologies like facial recognition. Violations can result in damages of up to $5,000 per person
Key Insight
Motorola Mobility is facing legal action for allegedly violating users’ biometric privacy rights by collecting personal data without permission through facial recognition technology. The lawsuit highlights concerns about companies’ collection and use of personal information without explicit consent, and the importance of protecting individuals’ privacy in the digital age
Why This Matters
This article sheds light on the growing issue of biometric privacy violations and the legal battles that consumers are fighting to protect their personal data. It raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of companies using facial recognition technology and highlights the need for stronger regulations to safeguard individuals’ privacy in the digital era
Notable Quote
“The arbitration provision, the way that companies sold it in the beginning, was that their terms were consumer-friendly and this was a quick, easy way to have the claim heard and avoid the time required in litigated class action.” – Melissa Nafash, attorney representing the plaintiffs
