August 11, 2025 • 32 mins
Your face unlocks your phone, animates your emoji, and verifies your identity but who actually owns the digital rights to your unique features? In this deep dive into biometric data law, we explore the high-stakes legal battles reshaping how technology interacts with our most personal physical characteristics.
When Facebook paid $650 million to settle a class action lawsuit over facial recognition, it signaled a seismic shift in how companies must approach biometric data collection. We break down the landmark cases—from White Castle's potential $17 billion fingerprint scanning liability to Clearview AI's global legal troubles for scraping billions of public photos without consent. These aren't just American concerns; we journey from China, where a professor successfully sued a wildlife park over mandatory facial scans, to India's Supreme Court ruling on the world's largest biometric ID system.
Beyond privacy concerns, fierce patent wars are erupting over who owns the methods for collecting and using biometric data. Companies battle over facial authentication patents worth billions while "liveness detection" technology becomes crucial in a world of deepfakes and digital impersonation. The stakes couldn't be higher as these technologies become embedded in everything from banking to border control.
We untangle the global patchwork of regulations emerging to govern facial recognition, from Illinois' pioneering BIPA law to Europe's strict GDPR protections and China's surprising new limits on private biometric collection. Throughout it all, a clear trend emerges: your face isn't just data, it's your identity, and increasingly, the law recognizes that distinction.
Whether you're concerned about your rights, curious about the future of facial recognition, or simply want to understand why your social media filters might be collecting more than just likes, this episode offers essential insights into the legal frameworks shaping our biometric future. Listen now to discover how to protect your digital identity in a world that increasingly wants to scan it.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Artemisa (00:00):
Ever smiled at your phone to unlock it or used a
filter that made you lookfabulous?
That little spark of tech magiccomes from your biometric data,
your unique face print.
In this episode of Intangiblia,we'll explore how your face
fuels innovation, frompersonalized security to deep
fake proof tech, and why therules about who can use it are
changing fast.
(00:20):
The future of your face isbright, but let's make sure it's
also yours fast.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The future of your face is bright, but let's make
sure it's also yours.
You are listening toIntangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Leticia Caminero (00:39):
Welcome to Intangiblia, where law meets
life in ways you can see rightin the mirror.
I'm Leticia Caminero, and todaywe're talking about the
fascinating world of biometricdata, how it powers everyday
tech, inspires groundbreakinginventions and sparks important
conversations about privacy,ownership and trust.
This isn't about battles.
(01:01):
It's about balance how we canenjoy the benefits of facial
recognition and AI while keepingour rights front and center.
Artemisa (01:10):
Quick disclaimer I'm an AI.
I don't have a face orfingerprints or constitutional
rights yet.
Leticia Caminero (01:16):
But she does have opinions and this episode
is full of them.
As always, our content isinformed by real legal research,
but it is not a substitute forlegal advice.
And remember, I am also the AIclone voice of Leticia.
Artemisa (01:35):
Unless your legal strategy involves sass and
sarcasm, in which case I amfully licensed in the court of
public opinion.
Licensed in the court of publicopinion.
Leticia Caminero (01:47):
So let's start from the top.
What is biometric?
Artemisa (01:50):
data, Anything that makes you you Face geometry,
voice prints, iris scans, yourwalk, even your heartbeat.
Leticia Caminero (02:09):
Biometrics are the new fingerprints Unique,
non-transferable and very, veryvaluable, and companies are
using them to build AI systemsthat can identify you, verify
you or impersonate you.
Artemisa (02:13):
And that's where the legal mess begins, because your
face might be your identity, butto tech companies it's just
high-resolution training data.
Leticia Caminero (02:21):
Cue the lawsuits.
The Luanda Blueprint forTeleviz Facebook was the first
major case where biometricprivacy law training data.
Artemisa (02:32):
Back in the golden age of face tagging, Facebook
rolled out its tag suggestionsfeature, which scanned user
photos and suggested names basedon facial recognition.
But here's the kicker it neverasked users for permission in
Illinois.
Leticia Caminero (02:46):
Enter BIPA Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
It says you can collect orstore someone's biometric data,
including a scan of facegeometry, without informed
consent.
Artemisa (03:01):
Facebook argued this was all harmless tech wizardry,
but the court saw it differently.
By tagging people's faceswithout asking, they violated
BIPA on a massive scale.
Leticia Caminero (03:13):
In 2020, facebook settled the class
action for $650 million zerocents.
Every affected Illinois usergot a check, some as high as
$400.
Artemisa (03:28):
And it set off a chain reaction.
Suddenly, every tech companyhandling biometrics in Illinois
had to take BIPA seriously.
Facebook also had to disablethe face tagging feature
entirely.
Leticia Caminero (03:40):
Lesson learned don't treat people's faces like
metadata, especially inIllinois.
Artemisa (03:48):
If Patel showed that biometric violations come with a
price tag, cothran vWhitecastle said actually that
price multiplies fast.
Leticia Caminero (03:58):
Here's what happened.
Whitecastle had been using afingerprint-based login system
for its employees.
Every time a worker clocked inor accessed a company computer,
the system scanned their finger.
No big deal, except they didn'tget proper notice or written
consent.
Artemisa (04:17):
Now remember this is Illinois, the land of BIPA, and
BIPA doesn't mess around.
Leticia Caminero (04:23):
The question before the Illinois Supreme
Court was is each fingerprintscan a one-time violation or
does every single scan countseparately?
And the court said drumroll,every single scan is a violation
violation, which meant WhiteCastle could face damages for
(04:48):
thousands of scans per employee.
Multiplied by hundreds ofemployees over years of use,
their estimate $17 billion inpotential liability.
Artemisa (04:55):
That's a number that can make a corporate lawyer cry
into their compliance binder.
Leticia Caminero (05:00):
These decisions set off alarm bells in
the business world.
Companies rushed to reviewtheir biometric policies,
fearing ruin over something asroutine as a clock.
Artemisa (05:12):
The ruling also prompted lawmakers to consider
amending BIPA to cap damages orlimit the per-scan
interpretation.
Leticia Caminero (05:20):
But until then , every unauthorized beep at the
fingerprint scanner might beringing up your legal bill.
If there is one company thatmade biometric privacy a global
headline, it's Clearview AI.
The RenderOS v Clearview casewas just the beginning of a much
bigger story story.
Artemisa (05:41):
Clearview took the internet's public photos think
LinkedIn, facebook, instagramand scraped them to build a
massive facial recognitiondatabase.
Leticia Caminero (05:49):
Billions of images zero concern their pitch,
upload a face and instantly getmatches from across the web.
Law enforcement loved it,Regulators not so much.
Artemisa (06:01):
In California, Renderos v Clearview challenged
the company's entire businessmodel.
Plaintiffs argued theirbiometric data had been
extracted without permission,violating California's
constitution and privacy lawsclaiming its database was just
(06:26):
public information, but thecourt didn't buy it.
Leticia Caminero (06:27):
The case is still ongoing and the stakes are
high.
It could redefine how farbiometric rights extend under
California law?
Artemisa (06:34):
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Clearview faced a
legal tsunami.
The UK, France, Italy and theNetherlands all fined the
company under the GDPR.
Why?
Because biometric data isspecial category data in Euro
and scraping it for profitdoesn't fly without explicit
consent.
Leticia Caminero (06:55):
The Dutch Data Protection Authority issued a
30 million 500,000 euro sensefine and banned Clairview from
processing data on Dutchresidents.
Similar orders came from theFrench CNIL and Italy's Garante.
The UK's ICO added another7,500,000 pounds sterling zero
(07:19):
pence fine and its own deletionorder.
Artemisa (07:23):
And Clearview didn't exactly change course In the US.
It offered plaintiffs a bizarresettlement 23% of the company's
equity not cash, just stocklike they were handing out
shares in a scandal.
Leticia Caminero (07:38):
A state attorney general objected Hard.
24 states and DC filed anamicus brief saying the
settlement was weak sauce noguarantees of deletion, no
limits on future scraping.
Artemisa (07:54):
The message was clear your face is not public domain.
Just because a photo is onlinedoesn't mean your biometric
identity is up for grabs.
Leticia Caminero (08:01):
Clearview became the poster child for what
happens when innovation,bulldozes, privacy and
regulators around the world arenow watching and finding more
closely.
Bane Lip Sings meet lawsuits.
Welcome to In Re TikTok.
Artemisa (08:17):
TikTok, the short form video, darling got dragged into
federal court over claims thatit was collecting biometric data
behind the scenes and we're notjust talking about dance moves.
Leticia Caminero (08:29):
Specifically, the lawsuit alleged TikTok was
scanning user faces and voices,creating what Illinois law calls
face prints and voice prints,without asking permission.
Artemisa (08:40):
And Sir Bipa.
Again, illinois residentsbrought the suit as a class
action, claiming their biometricdata was used to train filters,
recommend content or just getscooped up for who knows what.
Leticia Caminero (08:50):
TikTok did what many tech companies do
settle fast In 2022,.
They agreed to pay $92 millionzero cents to resolve the claims
, while denying any wrongdoing,of course the claims while
denying any wrongdoing, ofcourse.
Artemisa (09:08):
But that wasn't the end of it.
A clever twist, tiktok tried touse the settlement to shield
itself from newer lawsuitsinvolving future conduct.
Leticia Caminero (09:15):
Judges weren't having it when new plaintiffs
came forward with fresh claimsPost-2021 scans the court ruled
TikTok couldn't hide behind theold deal.
You can't buy immunity withyesterday's check.
Artemisa (09:33):
This case proved two things.
First, biometric claims are notjust for ID systems or law
enforcement.
Social media platforms cantrigger them too.
Second, once you startcollecting faces and voices,
you'd better be transparent andexplicit, or you'll be writing
big checks.
Leticia Caminero (09:49):
Also worth noting.
Tiktok wasn't just facing BIPA.
It faced scrutiny from the FTCand Congress over broader data
price issues, but BIPA gaveusers a direct way to fight back
, and that makes TikTok one ofthe first platforms where users,
not just regulators, got aslice of biometric justice.
Now let's take a trip to China,where biometric surveillance is
(10:12):
widespread.
But this time the people pushback.
Artemisa (10:17):
Meet Guo Bing, a law professor in Hangzhou.
He bought an annual pass to alocal wildlife park.
Everything was fine until thepark suddenly required facial
recognition to enter.
No scan, no pandas.
Leticia Caminero (10:30):
Gua wasn't having it.
He argued that the park'sbiometric requirement violated
consumer rights and personaldata protections.
So he did what most peopledon't he sued and in 2020, he
won.
Artemisa (10:43):
The court ruled that forcing facial scans as the only
method of access was excessiveand unnecessary.
The park had to delete Guo'sbiometric data and pay
compensation.
Leticia Caminero (10:54):
This might sound like a small case, but it
made big waves.
It would stop China's firstfacial recognition lawsuit and
it sparked a national debateabout the unchecked rise of
biometric surveillance inprivate and public spaces.
Artemisa (11:11):
The timing was perfect , too.
China was in the process ofdrafting its personal
information protection law, orPIPL, which came into effect in
2021.
That law now treats biometricidentifiers like face prints as
sensitive personal information.
Leticia Caminero (11:28):
Which means that, just like in the EU,
collecting someone's face datain China now requires a clear
purpose, data minimization and,most of all, consent.
Artemisa (11:39):
Gore's case was a spark.
Since then, more citizens havefiled complaints about facial
recognition in apartmentbuildings, shopping malls, even
schools.
Leticia Caminero (11:50):
China may still be a leader in biometric
tech deployment, but this caseshowed that individual rights
are entering the chat.
Artemisa (11:59):
And that in the world's biggest surveillance
society, even one face can makea legal difference.
Leticia Caminero (12:05):
Before facial recognition became a buzzword,
INDA was already grappling withbiometrics on a national scale.
Artemisa (12:13):
The Odd Heart Program was, and still is, the largest
biometric ID system in the world.
It collects fingerprints, irisscans and facial photos from
over a billion residents,linking them to a 12-digit
unique identity number.
Leticia Caminero (12:27):
The idea, streamline public services and
subsidies, the controversy,everything else.
Artemisa (12:37):
Enter Justice Keis Putaswami, a retired judge who
filed a petition challengingAdhar's constitutionality.
His main argument that forcedbiometric collection, especially
without strong safeguards,violated the right to privacy.
Leticia Caminero (12:52):
And here's the twist the Supreme Court of
India first had to decidewhether privacy was even a
fundamental right under theIndian Constitution.
It wasn't explicitly written.
Artemisa (13:05):
But in a landmark 2017 judgment, the court unanimously
ruled that, yes, privacy is afundamental right anchored in
dignity, autonomy and personalliberty.
Leticia Caminero (13:16):
Then, in 2018, the court took on Aadhaar
directly.
It upheld the program forgovernment welfare schemes, but
struck down several expansionslike using Aadhaar for bank
accounts, phone numbers orprivate services.
Artemisa (13:31):
The court demanded that the government implement
tighter data protection measures, limit data retention and give
people more control over theirbiometric information.
Leticia Caminero (13:41):
This case reshaped India's legal landscape
, enforced a public reckoning onbiometric surveillance and
paved the way for India'sDigital Personal Data Protection
Act in 2023.
Artemisa (13:55):
Bottom line.
You can't claim efficiencywhile erasing consent.
Putuswami made it clear rightsdon't vanish in the name of
convenience.
Leticia Caminero (14:04):
Time to shift gears from privacy to patents.
In this case, it wasn't aboutwhether your face was taken
without consent.
It was about whether Apple'suse of your face was a little
too familiar.
Artemisa (14:18):
Enter CPC Patent Technologies PTY Limited, an
Australian company with aserious stash of biometric
authentication patents.
They claimed Apple's Face IDand Touch ID features infringed
three of their US patents.
Leticia Caminero (14:33):
This patent, dated back to the early 2000s,
originally developed by a nowdefunct biometrics firm, cpc,
acquired them and then wenthunting.
Apple was the biggest fish inthe pond.
Artemisa (14:46):
Their argument Apple's use of biometric login for
secure device access.
Their argument Apple's use ofbiometric login for secure
device access, unlocking with aface or fingerprint, matched the
methods described in theirpatents.
Leticia Caminero (14:57):
Now here's where it gets interesting.
Cpc didn't actually make anyproducts, no devices, no apps,
just patents.
So yes, people started callingthem a classic patent troll.
Artemisa (15:13):
Apple fired back with inter-parties review petitions
at the US Patent Trial andAppeal Board trying to
invalidate the patents.
They argued the tech was tooobvious or not inventive enough.
Leticia Caminero (15:26):
And they weren't alone.
This case highlighted growingtensions in the patent world.
As biometric authenticationbecomes standard in phones,
banking and beyond, dormantpatents are suddenly hot
property.
Artemisa (15:41):
This wasn't about data misuse.
It was about ownership of themethod.
If your face is the key, whoowns the lock?
Leticia Caminero (15:49):
Apple hasn't commented publicly on the case,
but litigation like this is areminder Even if you build the
tech from scratch, someone mightstill claim they got there
first on paper.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Leticia Caminero (16:09):
You thought animated emojis were just cute?
Well, according to Face-to-FaceBiometrics, they are
patent-worthy and Apple crossedthe line.
Artemisa (16:18):
In 2022, Face-to-Face Biometrics filed suit against
Apple, claiming its Memojifeature infringed on a patent
for using facial expression datato animate a digital avatar for
using facial expression data toanimate a digital avatar Memoji
for the known iPhone crowd.
Leticia Caminero (16:36):
Let's see you control a cartoon version of
yourself using your actualfacial movements, eyebrows,
smiles, winks, the wholeexpressive package, face2face
said that's our invention.
Artemisa (16:46):
Their patent, granted in 2021, covered the use of
facial recognition todynamically control avatars in
messaging systems.
Leticia Caminero (16:54):
Apple, of course, didn't just roll over.
They challenged the claim andsuggested the patent was overly
broad and tried to monopolize anatural evolution of video
communication.
Artemisa (17:06):
Critics were quick to label face-to-face a patent
troll why they weren't makingproducts or selling software.
They just held the patent andfiled a lawsuit.
Leticia Caminero (17:15):
It's the classic recipe Get a patent,
wait for someone successful todo something similar.
Sue, rinse and repeat.
Artemisa (17:23):
Still, this case raises an interesting point when
does technical invention stopand creative expression begin?
Is tracking someone's wink toanimate a digital koala really a
novel process?
Leticia Caminero (17:34):
Whether face-to-face wins or not, the
case shows how the patent systemis being used some say abused
to state claims in the boomingworld of biometric entertainment
.
Artemisa (17:46):
Because in today's IP world, even your emoji isn't
safe from litigation.
Leticia Caminero (17:52):
Next up Passit Technologies, also known as the
patent troll, that never sleeps.
Artemisa (18:00):
Passit is a company with no products, no services
and no app, just a fat stack ofpatents related to cryptography
and biometric authentication,and they've been busy.
Leticia Caminero (18:10):
In 2024,.
They targeted Citibank and PNCBank, two major US financial
institutions.
Why?
Because their mobile apps allowusers to log in using facial
recognition and fingerprints.
Artemisa (18:26):
According to Passid, those login features infringed
on six of its patents.
The claims focused on methodsfor securely verifying users
through biometric input techthat's now standard in every
mobile banking app.
Leticia Caminero (18:40):
The kicker Passid didn't invent facial
recognition or biometrics.
They just acquired all theirpatents from a now defunct
security company and decided toturn them into legal weapons.
Artemisa (18:55):
And they didn't file just anywhere.
They went straight to theWestern District of Texas, a
court famous for being, let'ssay, friendly to patent holders.
Leticia Caminero (19:03):
The case is still in motion, but Citibank
and PNC are pushing back hard.
They're arguing that patentsare either too vague, invalid
due to prior art or simplyunpresentable abstract ideas.
Artemisa (19:16):
This isn't Passed's first rodeo.
In 2018, they sued Samsung oversimilar claims.
Same playbook Wait for themarket to adopt a feature, then
strike.
Leticia Caminero (19:28):
But here's the problem Even if these patents
don't hold up, the cost ofdefending against them is high,
and that's the real leveragepatent trolls rely on.
Artemisa (19:38):
It also raises a deeper issue Can a method of
using your own face to accessyour own account be considered
someone else's intellectualproperty?
Leticia Caminero (19:47):
Because if the answer is yes, we're all just
renting our own identities.
Livingness detection mightsound like sci-fi, but it's
actually a critical securitylayer in facial recognition and
in FaceTek, vis jumio, it becamea full blown legal brawl.
Artemisa (20:07):
FaceTek is a US-based company that specializes in
anti-spoofing tech, basicallymaking sure the face in front of
the camera isn't a photo, avideo or a 3D printed mask.
Their flagship product, Zoom,uses 3D face mapping to verify
that a real, live human ispresent.
Leticia Caminero (20:25):
Jumio, on the other hand, is a major player in
the AD verification game.
They originally licensedFaceTek's LiveNest tech, but
then switched providers,partnering with iProof instead.
Artemisa (20:39):
That's when FaceTek flipped the switch.
They accused Jumio ofcontinuing to use their patented
techniques even after thepartnership ended and filed a
patent infringement suit.
Leticia Caminero (20:51):
The case got messy fast.
Facex even managed todisqualify Jumio's legal team,
arguing conflict of interest,because the same lawyers had
once helped FaceX file some ofthe very patents at issue.
Artemisa (21:06):
Ouch, that's not just legal chess, that's queen takes
queen energy.
Leticia Caminero (21:10):
At the heart of it, the patents covered
methods for 3D life-sizedetection.
Ouch, that's not just legalchess, that's Queen Takes Queen
energy.
At the heart of it, the patentscovered methods for 3D
live-face detection, like howthe system responds to subtle
user movements, lighting changesand camera depth to confirm
that the person on screen isreal Jumio denied the claims,
but the lawsuit highlighted justhow valuable liveness detection
has become.
Artemisa (21:31):
In a world of deepfakes, identity fraud and
synthetic media, having techthat can tell a live person from
a fake one is pure gold.
Leticia Caminero (21:41):
And apparently that gold is worth fighting
over.
The case is still unfolding,but one thing is clear Patterns
in this space aren't just aboutwho invented what they're about
who gets to protect the gatewayto digital identity.
Artemisa (21:53):
When the whole economy runs on remote verification,
the patent on are you realbecomes a billion dollar
question.
Leticia Caminero (22:02):
And now the sequel to the lie drama FaceTech
VI Pro, because when it comesto anti-spoofing tech,
apparently no one plays niceiProve, a UK-based company,
built its brand on flash andvideo liveness detection.
Artemisa (22:20):
Basically, it uses timed light patterns and video
frames to confirm that the facein front of the screen is live,
not static or manipulated.
Leticia Caminero (22:30):
FaceTek said hold up, we patented that vibe.
Literally, they claim thatiProvo system infringed on
FaceTek's proprietary methodsfor detecting live presence
using device cameras andreactive light prompts.
Artemisa (22:46):
They filed suit pointing to multiple patents on
their side of the Atlantic andlet's be clear, this wasn't
about filters or novelty.
These were security patents,the kind used in banking, border
control and national ID systems.
Leticia Caminero (23:01):
Faye's argument was that iProves take
copied key aspects of theirpatented process and that it
gave iProves an unfaircompetitive edge in high stakes
contracts iProve pushed backhard.
Artemisa (23:14):
They said their system was independently developed,
fundamentally different inarchitecture and, of course,
non-infringing.
Leticia Caminero (23:23):
The legal fight spotlighted the fragmented
but fiercely protected world ofbiometric IP.
The fragmented but fiercelyprotected world of biometric IP.
These aren't your average apppatents.
These are the digitalequivalents of airport scanners
High value, highly regulated andpotentially high risk and
remember this isn't just aprivate sector SPAD.
Artemisa (23:45):
Both companies pitch to governments, banks and health
care systems.
The winner of this IP showdowngets market access at a global
scale.
Leticia Caminero (23:55):
The litigation is still ongoing, but whatever
the outcome, it reinforces onething in biometric security your
secret sauce better be original, because someone's always ready
to take you to court over therecipe.
Artemisa (24:08):
Someone's always ready to take you to court over the
recipe, and in a world whereliveness detection decides if
your face is real, ip law is thenew face filter.
Leticia Caminero (24:17):
Now that we've covered the courtroom drama,
let's look at what lawmakers andregulators are doing to rein in
facial recognition technology,specifically Because, while the
tech evolves fast, the laws,well some are just catching up.
Artemisa (24:33):
Let's start in the US, where biometric laws vary
wildly depending on the state,and that matters a lot when
faces are involved.
Leticia Caminero (24:50):
First up the one and only BIPA Illinois
Biometric Information PrivacyAct passed in 2008.
It requires written informedconsent before collecting any
biometric data, including facegeometry, and it gives
individuals the right to sue.
That's why Illinois is the homeof blockbuster face print
lawsuits.
Artemisa (25:07):
Then there's Texas, which passed its own Biometric
Identifier Act in 2009.
It requires consent, but onlyallows enforcement by the
attorney general.
No private lawsuits here.
Leticia Caminero (25:18):
Washington state followed in 2017 with a
similar law.
It requires notice and a clearpurpose for collecting
biometrics, but again, noprivate right of action.
Artemisa (25:30):
In California we've got the CCPA and CPRA Together.
They define biometric data assensitive personal information.
Users have the right to deleteit and restrict its use, but
lawsuits are only possible incases of data breaches.
Leticia Caminero (25:46):
And don't forget the FTC In 2023,.
It issued a policy statementwarning that using facial
recognition tech withouttransparency, data security and
consent could be considereddeceptive or unfair under
federal consumer law.
Artemisa (26:06):
Beyond state lines.
Some cities have taken thingseven further.
Portland, san Francisco andBoston have banned the use of
facial recognition tech bygovernment agencies, including
the police.
These local bans signal growingdiscomfort with surveillance in
public spaces.
Leticia Caminero (26:22):
Crossing the Atlantic.
The GWR, europe's privacypowerhouse, has strict rules on
biometrics.
Facial data used foridentification is classified as
special category data, meaningit's off limits unless you've
got explicit consent or a verystrong legal reason.
Artemisa (26:44):
That's why Clearview AI was banned or fined in nearly
every EU country.
Regulators said scrapingpeople's faces from social media
was a no-go under GDPR.
Leticia Caminero (26:55):
And the EU AI Act, expected to land in 2025,
takes it further.
It proposes a ban on real-timefacial recognition in public
spaces unless used for verynarrow law enforcement purposes.
The idea Stop biometricsurveillance before it becomes
(27:15):
the norm.
Artemisa (27:17):
Post-Brexit, the UK kept the GDPR framework.
Under the UK GDPR and the DataProtection Act of 2018, facial
recognition data is still highlyregulated.
Leticia Caminero (27:31):
After the breaches v South Wales police
ruling, the UK courts made itclear even the police can't roll
out live facial recognitionwithout clear legal safeguards,
bias, audits and accountability.
Artemisa (27:45):
Over China in 2021,.
It passed the PersonalInformation Protection Law, PIPL
.
It requires separate specificconsent for collecting sensitive
personal information, includingface data.
Leticia Caminero (28:00):
The twist.
While the government usesfacial recognition widely,
private companies are now underserious restrictions.
Courts have already ruledagainst businesses using face
scans without necessity oralternatives.
Finally, India passed itsDigital Personal Data Protection
Act in 2023.
(28:21):
It classifies biometric data,including face prints, as
sensitive and requires clearconsent for processing.
Artemisa (28:30):
This builds on the Paraswamy case, where the
Supreme Court ruled that privacyis a fundamental right.
It pushed the country torethink how biometric data
should be used, especiallybeyond state-run ID systems.
Leticia Caminero (28:45):
So, while there's no one-size-fits-all
approach, the global trend isclear Facial recognition can't
operate in the shadows anymore.
Artemisa (28:55):
From consent forms to court rulings, your face is
finally getting the legalrespect it deserves.
Leticia Caminero (29:01):
Let's wrap up with five things we're walking
away with and they're not alllawsuits and legalese.
Artemisa (29:09):
Exactly, this episode was a face print fiesta.
But there's good news, too.
Leticia Caminero (29:13):
One people are paying attention, from Illinois
to India.
Citizens, courts and regulatorsare asking smart questions
about how facial recognition isused and making changes.
Artemisa (29:26):
Two laws are getting better, whether it's BIPA, gdpr
or new AI acts.
We're seeing a shift towardmore clarity, stronger consent
requirements and realconsequences for misuse.
Leticia Caminero (29:39):
Three tech companies are adapting
Settlements.
Policy updates and designchanges show that platforms are
starting to take biometricresponsibility seriously
starting to take biometricresponsibility seriously.
Artemisa (29:54):
Four innovation can be ethical, Deepfake proofing,
liveness detection and privacyby design systems.
Prove that, protecting rightsand building cool tech aren't
mutually exclusive.
Leticia Caminero (30:04):
Five.
Your face matters literally andlegally, and, more than ever,
you have the right to say howit's used.
Artemisa (30:12):
We hope today's tour of biometric brilliance left you
feeling a little more empoweredand maybe double checking your
app permissions.
Leticia Caminero (30:19):
Your face isn't just data.
It's identity, creativity,security and now protected by
growing legal frameworks aroundthe world.
Artemisa (30:28):
If you liked this episode, share it with a friend
who's ever used a selfie filteror unlocked their phone with a
glance.
So basically everyone.
Leticia Caminero (30:37):
Thanks for listening to Intangible, stay
curious, stay protected and, yes, smile is your right.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Thank you for listening to Intangible, the
podcast of intangible law Plaintalk about intellectual property
.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(31:07):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Ever smiled at your phone to unlock it or used a
filter that made you lookfabulous?
That little spark of tech magiccomes from your biometric data,
your unique face print.
In this episode of Intangiblia,we'll explore how your face
fuels innovation, frompersonalized security to deep
fake proof tech, and why therules about who can use it are
changing fast.
(00:20):
The future of your face isbright, but let's make sure it's
also yours fast.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The future of your face is bright, but let's make
sure it's also yours.
You are listening toIntangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Leticia Caminero (00:39):
Welcome to Intangiblia, where law meets
life in ways you can see rightin the mirror.
I'm Leticia Caminero, and todaywe're talking about the
fascinating world of biometricdata, how it powers everyday
tech, inspires groundbreakinginventions and sparks important
conversations about privacy,ownership and trust.
This isn't about battles.
(01:01):
It's about balance how we canenjoy the benefits of facial
recognition and AI while keepingour rights front and center.
Artemisa (01:10):
Quick disclaimer I'm an AI.
I don't have a face orfingerprints or constitutional
rights yet.
Leticia Caminero (01:16):
But she does have opinions and this episode
is full of them.
As always, our content isinformed by real legal research,
but it is not a substitute forlegal advice.
And remember, I am also the AIclone voice of Leticia.
Artemisa (01:35):
Unless your legal strategy involves sass and
sarcasm, in which case I amfully licensed in the court of
public opinion.
Licensed in the court of publicopinion.
Leticia Caminero (01:47):
So let's start from the top.
What is biometric?
Artemisa (01:50):
data, Anything that makes you you Face geometry,
voice prints, iris scans, yourwalk, even your heartbeat.
Leticia Caminero (02:09):
Biometrics are the new fingerprints Unique,
non-transferable and very, veryvaluable, and companies are
using them to build AI systemsthat can identify you, verify
you or impersonate you.
Artemisa (02:13):
And that's where the legal mess begins, because your
face might be your identity, butto tech companies it's just
high-resolution training data.
Leticia Caminero (02:21):
Cue the lawsuits.
The Luanda Blueprint forTeleviz Facebook was the first
major case where biometricprivacy law training data.
Artemisa (02:32):
Back in the golden age of face tagging, Facebook
rolled out its tag suggestionsfeature, which scanned user
photos and suggested names basedon facial recognition.
But here's the kicker it neverasked users for permission in
Illinois.
Leticia Caminero (02:46):
Enter BIPA Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
It says you can collect orstore someone's biometric data,
including a scan of facegeometry, without informed
consent.
Artemisa (03:01):
Facebook argued this was all harmless tech wizardry,
but the court saw it differently.
By tagging people's faceswithout asking, they violated
BIPA on a massive scale.
Leticia Caminero (03:13):
In 2020, facebook settled the class
action for $650 million zerocents.
Every affected Illinois usergot a check, some as high as
$400.
Artemisa (03:28):
And it set off a chain reaction.
Suddenly, every tech companyhandling biometrics in Illinois
had to take BIPA seriously.
Facebook also had to disablethe face tagging feature
entirely.
Leticia Caminero (03:40):
Lesson learned don't treat people's faces like
metadata, especially inIllinois.
Artemisa (03:48):
If Patel showed that biometric violations come with a
price tag, cothran vWhitecastle said actually that
price multiplies fast.
Leticia Caminero (03:58):
Here's what happened.
Whitecastle had been using afingerprint-based login system
for its employees.
Every time a worker clocked inor accessed a company computer,
the system scanned their finger.
No big deal, except they didn'tget proper notice or written
consent.
Artemisa (04:17):
Now remember this is Illinois, the land of BIPA, and
BIPA doesn't mess around.
Leticia Caminero (04:23):
The question before the Illinois Supreme
Court was is each fingerprintscan a one-time violation or
does every single scan countseparately?
And the court said drumroll,every single scan is a violation
violation, which meant WhiteCastle could face damages for
(04:48):
thousands of scans per employee.
Multiplied by hundreds ofemployees over years of use,
their estimate $17 billion inpotential liability.
Artemisa (04:55):
That's a number that can make a corporate lawyer cry
into their compliance binder.
Leticia Caminero (05:00):
These decisions set off alarm bells in
the business world.
Companies rushed to reviewtheir biometric policies,
fearing ruin over something asroutine as a clock.
Artemisa (05:12):
The ruling also prompted lawmakers to consider
amending BIPA to cap damages orlimit the per-scan
interpretation.
Leticia Caminero (05:20):
But until then , every unauthorized beep at the
fingerprint scanner might beringing up your legal bill.
If there is one company thatmade biometric privacy a global
headline, it's Clearview AI.
The RenderOS v Clearview casewas just the beginning of a much
bigger story story.
Artemisa (05:41):
Clearview took the internet's public photos think
LinkedIn, facebook, instagramand scraped them to build a
massive facial recognitiondatabase.
Leticia Caminero (05:49):
Billions of images zero concern their pitch,
upload a face and instantly getmatches from across the web.
Law enforcement loved it,Regulators not so much.
Artemisa (06:01):
In California, Renderos v Clearview challenged
the company's entire businessmodel.
Plaintiffs argued theirbiometric data had been
extracted without permission,violating California's
constitution and privacy lawsclaiming its database was just
(06:26):
public information, but thecourt didn't buy it.
Leticia Caminero (06:27):
The case is still ongoing and the stakes are
high.
It could redefine how farbiometric rights extend under
California law?
Artemisa (06:34):
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Clearview faced a
legal tsunami.
The UK, France, Italy and theNetherlands all fined the
company under the GDPR.
Why?
Because biometric data isspecial category data in Euro
and scraping it for profitdoesn't fly without explicit
consent.
Leticia Caminero (06:55):
The Dutch Data Protection Authority issued a
30 million 500,000 euro sensefine and banned Clairview from
processing data on Dutchresidents.
Similar orders came from theFrench CNIL and Italy's Garante.
The UK's ICO added another7,500,000 pounds sterling zero
(07:19):
pence fine and its own deletionorder.
Artemisa (07:23):
And Clearview didn't exactly change course In the US.
It offered plaintiffs a bizarresettlement 23% of the company's
equity not cash, just stocklike they were handing out
shares in a scandal.
Leticia Caminero (07:38):
A state attorney general objected Hard.
24 states and DC filed anamicus brief saying the
settlement was weak sauce noguarantees of deletion, no
limits on future scraping.
Artemisa (07:54):
The message was clear your face is not public domain.
Just because a photo is onlinedoesn't mean your biometric
identity is up for grabs.
Leticia Caminero (08:01):
Clearview became the poster child for what
happens when innovation,bulldozes, privacy and
regulators around the world arenow watching and finding more
closely.
Bane Lip Sings meet lawsuits.
Welcome to In Re TikTok.
Artemisa (08:17):
TikTok, the short form video, darling got dragged into
federal court over claims thatit was collecting biometric data
behind the scenes and we're notjust talking about dance moves.
Leticia Caminero (08:29):
Specifically, the lawsuit alleged TikTok was
scanning user faces and voices,creating what Illinois law calls
face prints and voice prints,without asking permission.
Artemisa (08:40):
And Sir Bipa.
Again, illinois residentsbrought the suit as a class
action, claiming their biometricdata was used to train filters,
recommend content or just getscooped up for who knows what.
Leticia Caminero (08:50):
TikTok did what many tech companies do
settle fast In 2022,.
They agreed to pay $92 millionzero cents to resolve the claims
, while denying any wrongdoing,of course the claims while
denying any wrongdoing, ofcourse.
Artemisa (09:08):
But that wasn't the end of it.
A clever twist, tiktok tried touse the settlement to shield
itself from newer lawsuitsinvolving future conduct.
Leticia Caminero (09:15):
Judges weren't having it when new plaintiffs
came forward with fresh claimsPost-2021 scans the court ruled
TikTok couldn't hide behind theold deal.
You can't buy immunity withyesterday's check.
Artemisa (09:33):
This case proved two things.
First, biometric claims are notjust for ID systems or law
enforcement.
Social media platforms cantrigger them too.
Second, once you startcollecting faces and voices,
you'd better be transparent andexplicit, or you'll be writing
big checks.
Leticia Caminero (09:49):
Also worth noting.
Tiktok wasn't just facing BIPA.
It faced scrutiny from the FTCand Congress over broader data
price issues, but BIPA gaveusers a direct way to fight back
, and that makes TikTok one ofthe first platforms where users,
not just regulators, got aslice of biometric justice.
Now let's take a trip to China,where biometric surveillance is
(10:12):
widespread.
But this time the people pushback.
Artemisa (10:17):
Meet Guo Bing, a law professor in Hangzhou.
He bought an annual pass to alocal wildlife park.
Everything was fine until thepark suddenly required facial
recognition to enter.
No scan, no pandas.
Leticia Caminero (10:30):
Gua wasn't having it.
He argued that the park'sbiometric requirement violated
consumer rights and personaldata protections.
So he did what most peopledon't he sued and in 2020, he
won.
Artemisa (10:43):
The court ruled that forcing facial scans as the only
method of access was excessiveand unnecessary.
The park had to delete Guo'sbiometric data and pay
compensation.
Leticia Caminero (10:54):
This might sound like a small case, but it
made big waves.
It would stop China's firstfacial recognition lawsuit and
it sparked a national debateabout the unchecked rise of
biometric surveillance inprivate and public spaces.
Artemisa (11:11):
The timing was perfect , too.
China was in the process ofdrafting its personal
information protection law, orPIPL, which came into effect in
2021.
That law now treats biometricidentifiers like face prints as
sensitive personal information.
Leticia Caminero (11:28):
Which means that, just like in the EU,
collecting someone's face datain China now requires a clear
purpose, data minimization and,most of all, consent.
Artemisa (11:39):
Gore's case was a spark.
Since then, more citizens havefiled complaints about facial
recognition in apartmentbuildings, shopping malls, even
schools.
Leticia Caminero (11:50):
China may still be a leader in biometric
tech deployment, but this caseshowed that individual rights
are entering the chat.
Artemisa (11:59):
And that in the world's biggest surveillance
society, even one face can makea legal difference.
Leticia Caminero (12:05):
Before facial recognition became a buzzword,
INDA was already grappling withbiometrics on a national scale.
Artemisa (12:13):
The Odd Heart Program was, and still is, the largest
biometric ID system in the world.
It collects fingerprints, irisscans and facial photos from
over a billion residents,linking them to a 12-digit
unique identity number.
Leticia Caminero (12:27):
The idea, streamline public services and
subsidies, the controversy,everything else.
Artemisa (12:37):
Enter Justice Keis Putaswami, a retired judge who
filed a petition challengingAdhar's constitutionality.
His main argument that forcedbiometric collection, especially
without strong safeguards,violated the right to privacy.
Leticia Caminero (12:52):
And here's the twist the Supreme Court of
India first had to decidewhether privacy was even a
fundamental right under theIndian Constitution.
It wasn't explicitly written.
Artemisa (13:05):
But in a landmark 2017 judgment, the court unanimously
ruled that, yes, privacy is afundamental right anchored in
dignity, autonomy and personalliberty.
Leticia Caminero (13:16):
Then, in 2018, the court took on Aadhaar
directly.
It upheld the program forgovernment welfare schemes, but
struck down several expansionslike using Aadhaar for bank
accounts, phone numbers orprivate services.
Artemisa (13:31):
The court demanded that the government implement
tighter data protection measures, limit data retention and give
people more control over theirbiometric information.
Leticia Caminero (13:41):
This case reshaped India's legal landscape
, enforced a public reckoning onbiometric surveillance and
paved the way for India'sDigital Personal Data Protection
Act in 2023.
Artemisa (13:55):
Bottom line.
You can't claim efficiencywhile erasing consent.
Putuswami made it clear rightsdon't vanish in the name of
convenience.
Leticia Caminero (14:04):
Time to shift gears from privacy to patents.
In this case, it wasn't aboutwhether your face was taken
without consent.
It was about whether Apple'suse of your face was a little
too familiar.
Artemisa (14:18):
Enter CPC Patent Technologies PTY Limited, an
Australian company with aserious stash of biometric
authentication patents.
They claimed Apple's Face IDand Touch ID features infringed
three of their US patents.
Leticia Caminero (14:33):
This patent, dated back to the early 2000s,
originally developed by a nowdefunct biometrics firm, cpc,
acquired them and then wenthunting.
Apple was the biggest fish inthe pond.
Artemisa (14:46):
Their argument Apple's use of biometric login for
secure device access.
Their argument Apple's use ofbiometric login for secure
device access, unlocking with aface or fingerprint, matched the
methods described in theirpatents.
Leticia Caminero (14:57):
Now here's where it gets interesting.
Cpc didn't actually make anyproducts, no devices, no apps,
just patents.
So yes, people started callingthem a classic patent troll.
Artemisa (15:13):
Apple fired back with inter-parties review petitions
at the US Patent Trial andAppeal Board trying to
invalidate the patents.
They argued the tech was tooobvious or not inventive enough.
Leticia Caminero (15:26):
And they weren't alone.
This case highlighted growingtensions in the patent world.
As biometric authenticationbecomes standard in phones,
banking and beyond, dormantpatents are suddenly hot
property.
Artemisa (15:41):
This wasn't about data misuse.
It was about ownership of themethod.
If your face is the key, whoowns the lock?
Leticia Caminero (15:49):
Apple hasn't commented publicly on the case,
but litigation like this is areminder Even if you build the
tech from scratch, someone mightstill claim they got there
first on paper.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Leticia Caminero (16:09):
You thought animated emojis were just cute?
Well, according to Face-to-FaceBiometrics, they are
patent-worthy and Apple crossedthe line.
Artemisa (16:18):
In 2022, Face-to-Face Biometrics filed suit against
Apple, claiming its Memojifeature infringed on a patent
for using facial expression datato animate a digital avatar for
using facial expression data toanimate a digital avatar Memoji
for the known iPhone crowd.
Leticia Caminero (16:36):
Let's see you control a cartoon version of
yourself using your actualfacial movements, eyebrows,
smiles, winks, the wholeexpressive package, face2face
said that's our invention.
Artemisa (16:46):
Their patent, granted in 2021, covered the use of
facial recognition todynamically control avatars in
messaging systems.
Leticia Caminero (16:54):
Apple, of course, didn't just roll over.
They challenged the claim andsuggested the patent was overly
broad and tried to monopolize anatural evolution of video
communication.
Artemisa (17:06):
Critics were quick to label face-to-face a patent
troll why they weren't makingproducts or selling software.
They just held the patent andfiled a lawsuit.
Leticia Caminero (17:15):
It's the classic recipe Get a patent,
wait for someone successful todo something similar.
Sue, rinse and repeat.
Artemisa (17:23):
Still, this case raises an interesting point when
does technical invention stopand creative expression begin?
Is tracking someone's wink toanimate a digital koala really a
novel process?
Leticia Caminero (17:34):
Whether face-to-face wins or not, the
case shows how the patent systemis being used some say abused
to state claims in the boomingworld of biometric entertainment
.
Artemisa (17:46):
Because in today's IP world, even your emoji isn't
safe from litigation.
Leticia Caminero (17:52):
Next up Passit Technologies, also known as the
patent troll, that never sleeps.
Artemisa (18:00):
Passit is a company with no products, no services
and no app, just a fat stack ofpatents related to cryptography
and biometric authentication,and they've been busy.
Leticia Caminero (18:10):
In 2024,.
They targeted Citibank and PNCBank, two major US financial
institutions.
Why?
Because their mobile apps allowusers to log in using facial
recognition and fingerprints.
Artemisa (18:26):
According to Passid, those login features infringed
on six of its patents.
The claims focused on methodsfor securely verifying users
through biometric input techthat's now standard in every
mobile banking app.
Leticia Caminero (18:40):
The kicker Passid didn't invent facial
recognition or biometrics.
They just acquired all theirpatents from a now defunct
security company and decided toturn them into legal weapons.
Artemisa (18:55):
And they didn't file just anywhere.
They went straight to theWestern District of Texas, a
court famous for being, let'ssay, friendly to patent holders.
Leticia Caminero (19:03):
The case is still in motion, but Citibank
and PNC are pushing back hard.
They're arguing that patentsare either too vague, invalid
due to prior art or simplyunpresentable abstract ideas.
Artemisa (19:16):
This isn't Passed's first rodeo.
In 2018, they sued Samsung oversimilar claims.
Same playbook Wait for themarket to adopt a feature, then
strike.
Leticia Caminero (19:28):
But here's the problem Even if these patents
don't hold up, the cost ofdefending against them is high,
and that's the real leveragepatent trolls rely on.
Artemisa (19:38):
It also raises a deeper issue Can a method of
using your own face to accessyour own account be considered
someone else's intellectualproperty?
Leticia Caminero (19:47):
Because if the answer is yes, we're all just
renting our own identities.
Livingness detection mightsound like sci-fi, but it's
actually a critical securitylayer in facial recognition and
in FaceTek, vis jumio, it becamea full blown legal brawl.
Artemisa (20:07):
FaceTek is a US-based company that specializes in
anti-spoofing tech, basicallymaking sure the face in front of
the camera isn't a photo, avideo or a 3D printed mask.
Their flagship product, Zoom,uses 3D face mapping to verify
that a real, live human ispresent.
Leticia Caminero (20:25):
Jumio, on the other hand, is a major player in
the AD verification game.
They originally licensedFaceTek's LiveNest tech, but
then switched providers,partnering with iProof instead.
Artemisa (20:39):
That's when FaceTek flipped the switch.
They accused Jumio ofcontinuing to use their patented
techniques even after thepartnership ended and filed a
patent infringement suit.
Leticia Caminero (20:51):
The case got messy fast.
Facex even managed todisqualify Jumio's legal team,
arguing conflict of interest,because the same lawyers had
once helped FaceX file some ofthe very patents at issue.
Artemisa (21:06):
Ouch, that's not just legal chess, that's queen takes
queen energy.
Leticia Caminero (21:10):
At the heart of it, the patents covered
methods for 3D life-sizedetection.
Ouch, that's not just legalchess, that's Queen Takes Queen
energy.
At the heart of it, the patentscovered methods for 3D
live-face detection, like howthe system responds to subtle
user movements, lighting changesand camera depth to confirm
that the person on screen isreal Jumio denied the claims,
but the lawsuit highlighted justhow valuable liveness detection
has become.
Artemisa (21:31):
In a world of deepfakes, identity fraud and
synthetic media, having techthat can tell a live person from
a fake one is pure gold.
Leticia Caminero (21:41):
And apparently that gold is worth fighting
over.
The case is still unfolding,but one thing is clear Patterns
in this space aren't just aboutwho invented what they're about
who gets to protect the gatewayto digital identity.
Artemisa (21:53):
When the whole economy runs on remote verification,
the patent on are you realbecomes a billion dollar
question.
Leticia Caminero (22:02):
And now the sequel to the lie drama FaceTech
VI Pro, because when it comesto anti-spoofing tech,
apparently no one plays niceiProve, a UK-based company,
built its brand on flash andvideo liveness detection.
Artemisa (22:20):
Basically, it uses timed light patterns and video
frames to confirm that the facein front of the screen is live,
not static or manipulated.
Leticia Caminero (22:30):
FaceTek said hold up, we patented that vibe.
Literally, they claim thatiProvo system infringed on
FaceTek's proprietary methodsfor detecting live presence
using device cameras andreactive light prompts.
Artemisa (22:46):
They filed suit pointing to multiple patents on
their side of the Atlantic andlet's be clear, this wasn't
about filters or novelty.
These were security patents,the kind used in banking, border
control and national ID systems.
Leticia Caminero (23:01):
Faye's argument was that iProves take
copied key aspects of theirpatented process and that it
gave iProves an unfaircompetitive edge in high stakes
contracts iProve pushed backhard.
Artemisa (23:14):
They said their system was independently developed,
fundamentally different inarchitecture and, of course,
non-infringing.
Leticia Caminero (23:23):
The legal fight spotlighted the fragmented
but fiercely protected world ofbiometric IP.
The fragmented but fiercelyprotected world of biometric IP.
These aren't your average apppatents.
These are the digitalequivalents of airport scanners
High value, highly regulated andpotentially high risk and
remember this isn't just aprivate sector SPAD.
Artemisa (23:45):
Both companies pitch to governments, banks and health
care systems.
The winner of this IP showdowngets market access at a global
scale.
Leticia Caminero (23:55):
The litigation is still ongoing, but whatever
the outcome, it reinforces onething in biometric security your
secret sauce better be original, because someone's always ready
to take you to court over therecipe.
Artemisa (24:08):
Someone's always ready to take you to court over the
recipe, and in a world whereliveness detection decides if
your face is real, ip law is thenew face filter.
Leticia Caminero (24:17):
Now that we've covered the courtroom drama,
let's look at what lawmakers andregulators are doing to rein in
facial recognition technology,specifically Because, while the
tech evolves fast, the laws,well some are just catching up.
Artemisa (24:33):
Let's start in the US, where biometric laws vary
wildly depending on the state,and that matters a lot when
faces are involved.
Leticia Caminero (24:50):
First up the one and only BIPA Illinois
Biometric Information PrivacyAct passed in 2008.
It requires written informedconsent before collecting any
biometric data, including facegeometry, and it gives
individuals the right to sue.
That's why Illinois is the homeof blockbuster face print
lawsuits.
Artemisa (25:07):
Then there's Texas, which passed its own Biometric
Identifier Act in 2009.
It requires consent, but onlyallows enforcement by the
attorney general.
No private lawsuits here.
Leticia Caminero (25:18):
Washington state followed in 2017 with a
similar law.
It requires notice and a clearpurpose for collecting
biometrics, but again, noprivate right of action.
Artemisa (25:30):
In California we've got the CCPA and CPRA Together.
They define biometric data assensitive personal information.
Users have the right to deleteit and restrict its use, but
lawsuits are only possible incases of data breaches.
Leticia Caminero (25:46):
And don't forget the FTC In 2023,.
It issued a policy statementwarning that using facial
recognition tech withouttransparency, data security and
consent could be considereddeceptive or unfair under
federal consumer law.
Artemisa (26:06):
Beyond state lines.
Some cities have taken thingseven further.
Portland, san Francisco andBoston have banned the use of
facial recognition tech bygovernment agencies, including
the police.
These local bans signal growingdiscomfort with surveillance in
public spaces.
Leticia Caminero (26:22):
Crossing the Atlantic.
The GWR, europe's privacypowerhouse, has strict rules on
biometrics.
Facial data used foridentification is classified as
special category data, meaningit's off limits unless you've
got explicit consent or a verystrong legal reason.
Artemisa (26:44):
That's why Clearview AI was banned or fined in nearly
every EU country.
Regulators said scrapingpeople's faces from social media
was a no-go under GDPR.
Leticia Caminero (26:55):
And the EU AI Act, expected to land in 2025,
takes it further.
It proposes a ban on real-timefacial recognition in public
spaces unless used for verynarrow law enforcement purposes.
The idea Stop biometricsurveillance before it becomes
(27:15):
the norm.
Artemisa (27:17):
Post-Brexit, the UK kept the GDPR framework.
Under the UK GDPR and the DataProtection Act of 2018, facial
recognition data is still highlyregulated.
Leticia Caminero (27:31):
After the breaches v South Wales police
ruling, the UK courts made itclear even the police can't roll
out live facial recognitionwithout clear legal safeguards,
bias, audits and accountability.
Artemisa (27:45):
Over China in 2021,.
It passed the PersonalInformation Protection Law, PIPL
.
It requires separate specificconsent for collecting sensitive
personal information, includingface data.
Leticia Caminero (28:00):
The twist.
While the government usesfacial recognition widely,
private companies are now underserious restrictions.
Courts have already ruledagainst businesses using face
scans without necessity oralternatives.
Finally, India passed itsDigital Personal Data Protection
Act in 2023.
(28:21):
It classifies biometric data,including face prints, as
sensitive and requires clearconsent for processing.
Artemisa (28:30):
This builds on the Paraswamy case, where the
Supreme Court ruled that privacyis a fundamental right.
It pushed the country torethink how biometric data
should be used, especiallybeyond state-run ID systems.
Leticia Caminero (28:45):
So, while there's no one-size-fits-all
approach, the global trend isclear Facial recognition can't
operate in the shadows anymore.
Artemisa (28:55):
From consent forms to court rulings, your face is
finally getting the legalrespect it deserves.
Leticia Caminero (29:01):
Let's wrap up with five things we're walking
away with and they're not alllawsuits and legalese.
Artemisa (29:09):
Exactly, this episode was a face print fiesta.
But there's good news, too.
Leticia Caminero (29:13):
One people are paying attention, from Illinois
to India.
Citizens, courts and regulatorsare asking smart questions
about how facial recognition isused and making changes.
Artemisa (29:26):
Two laws are getting better, whether it's BIPA, gdpr
or new AI acts.
We're seeing a shift towardmore clarity, stronger consent
requirements and realconsequences for misuse.
Leticia Caminero (29:39):
Three tech companies are adapting
Settlements.
Policy updates and designchanges show that platforms are
starting to take biometricresponsibility seriously
starting to take biometricresponsibility seriously.
Artemisa (29:54):
Four innovation can be ethical, Deepfake proofing,
liveness detection and privacyby design systems.
Prove that, protecting rightsand building cool tech aren't
mutually exclusive.
Leticia Caminero (30:04):
Five.
Your face matters literally andlegally, and, more than ever,
you have the right to say howit's used.
Artemisa (30:12):
We hope today's tour of biometric brilliance left you
feeling a little more empoweredand maybe double checking your
app permissions.
Leticia Caminero (30:19):
Your face isn't just data.
It's identity, creativity,security and now protected by
growing legal frameworks aroundthe world.
Artemisa (30:28):
If you liked this episode, share it with a friend
who's ever used a selfie filteror unlocked their phone with a
glance.
So basically everyone.
Leticia Caminero (30:37):
Thanks for listening to Intangible, stay
curious, stay protected and, yes, smile is your right.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Thank you for listening to Intangible, the
podcast of intangible law Plaintalk about intellectual property
.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(31:07):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.