0
Image containing the United States flag, Illinois state flag, and city of Chicago flag.

The Illinois Human Rights Act Addresses the Use of AI In Employment Decisions

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming an integral part of business operations, including hiring and managing employees. As these systems become more involved in our daily lives, legislators are taking note.   On August 9, 2024, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Bill 3773 into law, regulating the use of AI in employment decisions. This law joins New York City Local Law 144 and the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act in addressing the use of AI in employment contexts.   This law goes into effect on January 1, 2026.   Key Takeaways of Bill 3773     Who is protected? The Illinois Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination for protected classes in Illinois, including discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, order of protection status, marital status, mental or physical disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy or unfavorable discharge from military service.”   Bill 3773 amends the Act by expanding its scope to include employment discrimination resulting from the use of AI.   What are the requirements? Building on the rights of the Illinois Human Rights Act, this amendment provides that employers may not use AI systems that have a discriminating effect on employees or job applicants based on any protected characteristics under the Act. Additionally, this amendment explicitly bans the use of race or zip code when used as a proxy for race in AI systems making employment decisions.   The amendment also contains a notice requirement: The employer must provide notice to the employee or applicant that the employer is using AI in their decisionmaking. This notice must be included if AI is used in the “employment-related activities” defined below, and the Illinois Department of Human Rights is tasked with providing rules on the means and time periods for providing notices.   What employers and systems does this impact? The law applies to an employer that:
  1. Employs one or more employees within Illinois for 20 or more weeks per year;
  2. Uses artificial intelligence systems such as generative AI models or any machine-based systems that use an input to infer how to generate outputs; and,
  3. Uses those artificial intelligence systems in employment-related activities – including recruitment, selection, hiring, promotion, and more – for employees, interns, and applicants.
  If an employer satisfies these thresholds of applicability, then the law most likely applies and the employer should review whether they are complying with the law’s requirements.   Similar Laws Regulating AI in Employment   Illinois follows Colorado and New York City with legislation that restricts the use of AI in employment decisions.   Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act In May 2024, Colorado enacted the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act, which includes parameters around “high-risk” systems. These systems include those which make “consequential decisions,” including decisions related to employment or employment opportunities. If a company is using a high-risk system, they must also adhere to specific notice, risk management, and impact assessment requirements. Additionally, they must also provide additional disclosures if the high-risk system makes an adverse decision. This includes adverse employment decisions.   New York City Local Law 144 The Illinois legislation also joins New York City Local Law 144. Signed in 2021, this law was the first legislation enacted by any state or local government that regulated the use of AI tools for employment decisions.   New York City Law 144 applies to employers and employment agencies in New York City that use “automated employment decision tools” to screen candidates or employees for employment decisions.   It requires a mandatory independent bias audit conducted within one year of using the AI tools, a summary of which must be disclosed on the employer’s website. Additionally, the employer must notify the candidate or employee that the AI system is used in connection with the decision, and shall allow a candidate to require either an accommodation or alternative selection process. The notice must disclose the job qualifications and the characteristics that the AI tool is using, and all notices must be given no less than 10 days before use.
0
Photo of American flag and California flag on a flagpole with a palm tree in the background.

California Wraps Its 2024 Legislative Session with Data Privacy & AI Bills

California’s legislative session closed on August 31, 2024 with a series of data privacy and AI bills. Over the course of September, Governor Newsom signed 17 bills covering AI technologies. This wave of legislation comes a year after Governor Newsom signed an Executive Order to help ensure California is ready for next wave of AI technologies.   Below is an overview of new and noteworthy AI and data privacy bills, beginning with six amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) followed by a range of signed and vetoed AI-related bills.   Passed CCPA Amendments  
  1. SB 1223and AB 1008: Neural Data, Personal Information and AI Systems
What Does the CCPA Require? Currently, the CCPA requires a business collects that collection personal information about a consumer to limit its use of the consumer’s sensitive personal information. “Sensitive personal information” includes biometric information for the purposes of identifying a consumer, but not neural data. Additionally, the CCPA does not specify if personal information can exist in various formats.   What Changes? Under SB 1223, the CCPA’s definition of “sensitive personal information” would be expanded. It would include consumer’s neural data, or “information that is generated by measuring the activity of the consumer’s central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information.”   Under AB 1008, the CCPA would also specify that “personal information can exist in various formats,” including physical, digital or abstract information, which may be in the form of encrypted files, metadata, or AI systems capable of outputting personal information.   Governor Newsom signed SB 1223 and AB 1008 into law on September 28, 2024. Both laws will become applicable on January 1, 2025.  
  1. AB 1824: Opt-Out Right, Mergers
What Does the CCPA Require? The CCPA states that consumers shall have the right to opt out of a business selling or sharing their personal information. However, the Act does not specify the requirements for honoring those requests upon a merger or acquisition.   What Changes? Under this bill, if a business transfers personal information to another business as part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy or other transaction, they must comply with the original opt-out requests of the transferring business.   Governor Newsom signed AB 1824 into law on September 29, 2024. This law takes effect on January 1, 2025.  
  1. AB 3286: Monetary Thresholds, Grants
What Does the CCPA Require? The CCPA grants the Attorney General rights to adjusting monetary thresholds to reflect an increase in the Consumer Price Index.   What Changes? This bill removes the responsibility of adjusting monetary thresholds from the Attorney General and places it on the California Privacy Protection Agency, among other minor changes.   Governor Newsom signed AB 3286 on July 15, 2024, and the law goes into effect on January 1, 2025.     Vetoed CCPA Amendments  
  1. AB 1949: Collection of Personal Information of a Consumer Less than 18 Years of Age
What Does the CCPA Require? The CCPA provides a consumer with specific rights regarding their personal information. Currently, the CCPA prohibits a business from selling or sharing personal information of a consumer if the business has actual knowledge that the consumer is less than 16 years old, unless they or their parent or guardian have properly consented.   What Changes? This bill would raise that age from 16 to 18 years old, meaning that a business shall not sell or share the personal information of one who is between 13 and 18 years old unless the consumer or their parent or guardian consents. A business shall not share or sell information of a child younger than 13 years old unless their parent or guardian consent.   Additionally, this bill would require a business to treat a consumer as younger than 18 years old if the consumer transmits a signal indicating they are younger than 18. The bill retains the CCPA’s “actual knowledge or willful disregard” standard for violations.   Finally, the bill requires California’s Attorney General to adopt regulations that include technical specifications for an opt-out preference signal that allows the consumer to specify if they are less than 13 years old, or between 13 and 18 years old.   Governor Newsom vetoed AB 1949 on September 28, 2024.  
  1. AB 3048: Opt-Out Preference Signals
What Does the CCPA Require? The CCPA states that consumers shall have the right to opt out of a business selling or sharing their personal information. To send opt-out preference signals now, users have to download plugins for major browsers which may vary by browser type.   Currently, the only opt-out preference signal recognized by the CCPA per Attorney General Rob Bonta’s FAQ page and supporting resources by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)  is the Global Privacy Control (GPC). However under the CCPA, the GPC is intended only to communicate with Do Not Sell requests for a global privacy control. Still, this is an enforced area of privacy law: In 2022, a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction against Sephora ordered the company to pay $1.2 million to resolve claims that Sephora did not process opt-out requests set through privacy controls.    What Changes? This bill is targeted at businesses who develop or maintain browsers, mandating that they must include settings that enable consumers to send an opt-out preference signal to businesses they interact with on the browser. After rulemaking and agency adoptions, the bill would also prohibit a business from developing or maintaining a mobile operating system that does not include opt-out preference signal settings. These provisions would go into effect beginning January 1, 2026.   Governor Newsom vetoed AB 3048 on September 20, 2024.   Passed AI Bills  
  1. SB 2013: Generative Artificial Intelligence, Training Data Transparency
Who Does This Apply to? This bill applies to “generative artificial intelligence” systems or services, which is defined as AI that can “generate derived synthetic content…that emulates the structure and characteristics of the [AI’s] training data.” There is no consumer use or monetary threshold, such that this definition seems to be far-reaching.   What Changes? This bill requires that the developers of all covered generative AI systems available to Californians must post information on their website. This information must include the data used to train the AI system or service, and a high-level summary of the datasets used in the system.   Bill SB 2013 was signed by Governor Newsom on September 28, 2024. This law will go into effect on January 1, 2026.  
  1. AB 2885: Artificial Intelligence, Definition
Who Does This Apply to? According to the preamble of the bill, the definition applies to actions taken by the Department of Technology, local agencies, the California Online Community College, and social media companies, under requirements of existing laws.   What Changes? The term “artificial intelligence” for these purposes would be altered to include an “engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy” and can generate output based on inferences made from its input.   Bill AB 2885 was signed by Governor Newsom on September 28, 2024. Provisions of this law will go into effect on January 1, 2025.  
  1. SB 942: California AI Transparency Act
Who Does This Apply to? This bill applies to “covered providers,” which includes persons that create, code or otherwise produce generative AI systems with over 1 million monthly visitors and are within California state.   What Changes? Under this bill, covered providers would be required to make publicly accessible AI detection tools. They would also be required to provide the user an option to include a disclosure, as well as provide a latent disclosure in content created or altered by the generative AI system.   Governor Newsom signed SB 942 into law on September 19, 2024, along with other bills addressing concerns around AI:  
  • SB 926prohibits creating and distributing sexually explicit realistic images of a person when those images are intended to cause serious emotional distress of the person. This bill is targeted at AI-generated sexually explicit content. Similarly, AB 1831 expands the existing child pornography statutes to include content created or altered by generative AI.
 
  • SB 981requires social media platforms to provide Californians with a mechanism to report digital identity theft on platform. Following the aim of Bill 926, this would include reporting AI images of a certain person whose identity has been stolen appearing to be engaged in certain sexual acts.
 
  1. AB 3030: Health Care Services, Artificial Intelligence
Who Does This Apply to? This bill applies to health facilities, clinics, physician’s offices, or other health group practices that use generative AI for communications about patient clinical information. “Patient clinical information” is defined as information relating to the health status of a patient, and specifically excludes administrative matters, such as appointment scheduling, billing, or “other clerical or business matters.”   What Changes? Under this bill, generative AI which pertains to clinical information must include: 1) a disclaimer that indicates the communication was generated by AI at the beginning of the interaction, and 2) clear instructions on how that patient can contact the appropriate person.   Governor Newsom signed AB 3030 into law on September 28, 2024. The law goes into effect immediately.   Similarly, SB 1120 was passed on September 28, 2024 and provides specific restrictions for health care service places or disability insurers who use AI in their decisionmaking. Under this law, health service plans must have specific policies and procedures in place, and must be overseen by a medical director with an unrestricted license to practice medicine in the state of California.  
  1. AB 1836: Use of Likeness, Digital Replica
Who Does This Apply to? This bill is intended to protect intellectual property, and applies to those creating digital replicas of another’s likeness. A “digital replica” means a “computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation” that one can readily identify as a likeness of the person being replicated.   What Changes? This bill makes a person who makes or distributes a digital replica of a deceased personality’s voice or likeness, without that person’s consent, liable for the greater of $10,000 or the amount actually suffered.   Governor Newsom signed AB 1836 into law on September 17, 2024. The law goes into effect immediately.   Similarly, Governor Newsom also signed AB 2602 into law on the same date. This law prohibits personal or professional service contracts that contain provisions for the use of a digital replica or likeness for a general purpose, unless the individual is represented by legal counsel. Instead, the contract must contain a reasonably specific description of the intended uses of the digital replica.  
  1. SB 2355: Political Advertisements, Artificial Intelligence
Who Does This Apply to? This bill applies to committees who create, publish or otherwise distribute political advertisements. These advertisements include all political ads that contain any image, audio, or video that is “generated or substantially altered” using AI.   What Changes? Under this bill, there are specific requirements for each format of ad. For example, a video advertisement shall include disclosures at the beginning or end of the advertisement and must be displayed for five or ten seconds, depending on the length of the ad.   Governor Newsom signed AB 2355 into law on September 17, 2024. The law goes into effect immediately.   Similarly, Governor Newsom also signed AB 2655 and AB 2839 into law on September 17, 2024.   AB 2655, known as the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, requires large online platforms (those with at least 1 million California users) to: 1) remove deceptive and digitally modified election content from their platforms, or 2) to label that content before and after the election if the content has been reported to the platform.   AB 2839 prohibits the knowing distribution of advertisements or other election communication that contains materially deceptive content within 120 days of an election in California, and in some cases, 60 days after an election.   Vetoed AI Bills
  1. SB 1047: Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act
Who Does This Apply to? This bill is directed toward high-complexity AI models, such as those whose floating operations exceed $100,000,000. Other than requirements in state data privacy laws and the Colorado AI Act, there are no AI laws of this scale enacted in the U.S.   What Changes? For these covered models, the bill has various requirements, including a written safety and security protocol, submission of that protocol to the Attorney General, and implementing the ability to promptly enact a shutdown.   Under this bill, the Attorney General may bring a civil action for a violation that causes death or harm to people or property, or that constitutes an imminent risk to public safety. Notably, this penalty is calculated by computing power. For the first violation, the penalty will be no more than 10% of the cost of the quantity of computing power used to train the covered model, and subsequent violations may not exceed 30% of that value.   Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1047 on September 29, 2024. In his decision, Governor Newsom considered that “California is home to 32 or the world’s 50 leading AI companies.” He noted that the bill applies only to these extensive and large-scale models, while “[s]maller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB- 1047 – at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in the favor of public good” by these large-scale models.
0

California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) – The Latest Privacy Litigation Trend

As more U.S. states enact comprehensive consumer privacy legislation, plaintiffs are turning to laws from the 1960s to pursue claims against companies that use website tracking technologies. Most notably, there has been a significant uptick in privacy litigation claiming that the use of website technology, such as session replay, chatbots, tracking pixels, and other analytics software, violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).

How We Got Here

Since 2022, a wave of class action lawsuits has been filed regarding Meta’s pixel, a tracking tool often used by companies for targeted advertising by tracking user activity. Many of these cases allege a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (“VPPA”), a federal law prohibiting videotape service providers from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information concerning their consumers. These lawsuits allege that companies which stream online video content on their websites while using the Meta pixel violated the VPPA by transmitting personally identifiable information about a website user to Meta. While many courts dismissed the VPPA Meta pixel cases, some of these cases (such as Ambrose v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC[1]) have survived the motion to dismiss stage, leading the parties to settle instead.

Lawsuits involving the Meta pixel, along with similar technology, are also being filed under alleged violations of strong state wiretapping laws, such as the CIPA. The CIPA, which was enacted in 1961, intended to protect California residents from then-new technologies used for different kinds of wiretapping. In these modern-day cases, plaintiffs claim that the use of many web analytics tools amount to a violation of CIPA’s wiretapping and eavesdropping provisions.

Relying on a Ninth Circuit court decision which held that CIPA also applies to “internet communications”[2], plaintiffs’ firms circulated hundreds of demand letters threatening CIPA class action litigation under CIPA’s Section 631(a) – which prohibits third-party wiretapping – and Section 632.7 – which prohibits the interception or receipt and recording of certain wireless communications without consent. The statutory penalty is $5,000 per violation, making it an attractive avenue for plaintiffs’ firms.

Where We Are Now (Thanks to Greenley v. Kochava[3])

An even more recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has prompted plaintiffs’ firms to turn to yet another theory and to file suits under alleged violations of CIPA Section 638.51. Section 638.51 prohibits the installation or use of a “pen register” or a “trap and trace device” without first obtaining a court order. A “pen register” is defined as a device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted.

The plaintiff in Greenley v. Kochava claimed that the defendant’s software that was installed in third-party mobile applications constituted an illegally installed pen register by tracking a user’s “geolocation, search terms, click choices, purchase decisions, and/or payment methods,” collecting this tracked information, and then selling it to third-party advertisers. Deciding on a motion to dismiss, the Greenley court stated that while CIPA’s definition of a pen register was specific as to the type of data a pen register collects, it was “vague and inclusive as to the form of the collection tool – ‘a device or process.’” With this in mind, the Greenley court held that “software that identifies consumers, gathers data, and correlates that data through unique ‘fingerprinting’ is a process that falls within CIPA’s pen register definition.” Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Following the Greenley court’s decision, over 50 new cases have already been filed in California state and federal courts under the CIPA pen register provision.

Where to Go from Here

Accordingly, businesses should evaluate their use of tracking software and technology, along with the disclosures in their privacy policy and potential consent mechanisms. The CIPA pen register provision allows a provider of electronic or wire communication services to use such a pen register if the consent of the user has been obtained. Although California courts have not yet interpreted consent in the context of the CIPA’s pen register provision, courts have found a user’s affirmative consent to be a successful defense in other CIPA claims.

 

[1] Ambrose v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10195-RGS.

[2] Javier v. Assurance IQ LLC et al., 2022 WL 1744107, *1 (9th Cir. 2022).

[3] Greenley v. Kochava, Inc., No. 22-CV-01327-BAS-AHG, 2023 WL 4833466 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2023).

0
Chicago Grand Central Looking Up

2024 U.S. regulatory enforcement priorities for data & AI

In late 2023 and early 2024, federal and state regulators signaled their enforcement priorities regarding the use of data and AI. These enforcement priorities range from sweeping investigations into entire labor sectors to targeting specific uses of technology.
FEDERAL

FTC. The FTC continues bringing actions against companies over their improper use of AI, increasing the risks of LLMs and generative AI. On March 8, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered a stipulated order with Rite Aid prohibiting the pharmacy chain from using any machine-based systems to analyze biometric information. A month before, the FTC announced proposed rules combating the use of AI to impersonate individuals, which includes potentially imposing a rule that would declare it unlawful for an AI platform to provide goods or services that the platform knows or has reason to know is being used to harm consumers through impersonation.

SEC. In a surprising regulatory move, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took action against two entities that made misleading disclosures regarding their use of AI. On March 18, 2024, the SEC announced a $400,000 settlement against two investment advisers for making false and misleading statements about their purported use of AI. The investors allegedly stated in its SEC filings, in press releases, and on their websites that they were harnessing AI tools in certain ways, when in fact they were not. The SEC published an AI and investment fraud alert, signaling that they will likely continue monitoring AI-related disclosures.


CALIFORNIA

Data Minimization. On April 2, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (the Agency) released its first Enforcement Advisory notice, emphasizing that covered businesses must apply the principle of data minimization to every purpose for which they collect, use, retain, and share personal information. Specifically, the Agency focused on the principle of data minimization during two scenarios: (1) responding to a consumer’s request to opt-out of sale/sharing and (2) verifying a consumer’s identity. Failure to adhere to the principle of data minimization may constitute a violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and its regulations.

Amended CCPA Regulations. On March 29, 2024, the amended CCPA regulations will take effect and be enforceable. These regulations were originally supposed to take effect on March 29, 2023, but the California Chamber of Commerce filed suit on March 30, 2023, arguing that the amended regulations could not enter into force until one year after finalization. The court agreed, thereby effectively pushing the enforcement date back to March 29, 2024. However, a California appellate court subsequently reversed that decision, thereby making the regulations effective immediately.

The Agency and the California Attorney General have indicated that they anticipate aggressively enforcing the new regulations, and since covered entities had nearly an extra year to comply with the new regulations, California regulators may not be lenient in providing cure periods for noncompliance with the new regulations.

Streaming Services. On January 26, 2024, the California Attorney General announced investigative sweeps into “popular streaming apps and devices,” and sending letters to businesses that fail to comply with the CCPA. Specifically, the AG’s sweep focuses on whether streaming services are complying with the CCPA’s opt-out requirements for selling or sharing consumer personal information. The sweep includes analyzing whether the streaming services “do not offer an easy mechanism for consumers who want to stop the sale of their data.” For example, consumers using a SmartTV should be able to easily enable a “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” setting in the streaming service and have that choice honored across different devices.

Connected Vehicles and Related Technologies. On July 31, 2023, the Agency announced investigative sweeps into the data privacy practices of connected vehicle manufacturers and related technologies. The Agency conducted the review under the CCPA and its regulations enforceable at the time, with a focus on whether connected vehicle manufacturers and the like provided consumers with rights under the law (e.g., right to know, right to delete, and right to opt out of sale/share). However, the Agency has not indicated whether the sweep will continue into 2024 as the new regulations take effect, so connected vehicle manufacturers and producers of related technologies should remain vigilant.


COLORADO

Global Privacy Control. In the fall of 2023, the Colorado Department of Law accepted applications for universal opt-out mechanisms (UOOMs) that, under the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), covered businesses would need to respect as a means for consumers to opt out of the sale of personal data or the sharing of personal data for targeted advertising. In December of 2023, the Colorado Attorney General announced that it selected the Global Privacy Control (GPC) as the UOOM the AG considers valid under the CPA.

Beginning on July 1, 2024, organizations subject to the CPA must ensure they are able to accept consumer opt-out requests made using the GPC, and the AG has announced that it “will prioritize for enforcement” compliance with the Department’s list of acceptable UOOMs.


CONNECTICUT

General Enforcement. On February 2, 2024, the Connecticut Attorney General released a report on the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA), which detailed the AG’s enforcement efforts and priorities. Since the CTDPA took effect, the AG has issued cure notices to covered entities in a wide range of industries, including retail, fitness, event services, career services, parenting technologies, and home improvement.

The cure notices identified the following deficiencies:

    • Lacking or inadequate disclosures (e.g., failure to inform consumers completely or sufficiently about their rights under the law);
    • Lacking rights mechanisms (e.g., failure to provide a webpage that enables consumers to opt out of targeted advertising or sale of data);
    • Burdensome rights mechanisms (e.g., rights mechanisms that did not take into account the ways consumers normally interact with the company); and,
    • Broken / inactive rights mechanisms (e.g., non-working links or dead-end mechanisms).

Taken together, the report indicates an interest in the AG to ensure covered entities (in a wide range of industries) provide sufficient privacy disclosures and compliant rights mechanisms.


BEST PRACTICES CHECKLIST As we move through 2024, businesses should consider the following to lower their risk of enforcement actions:
  • Analyze State Privacy Thresholds. Each of the US state privacy laws feature their own thresholds of applicability that must be met before a business must comply with the law, so businesses must continually monitor whether they have satisfied any of these numerous thresholds. To help, we have compiled all of the state privacy law thresholds.
  • Create Data Maps. Because state and international privacy laws impose certain obligations on specific types of data (e.g., personal v. sensitive) and processing activities (e.g., using AI for significant decisions), businesses should create data maps to monitor and document their information practices.
  • Respect Opt-Out Signals. Where a state privacy law requires respecting opt-out preference signals, ensure that you have implemented a means for websites to recognize and respect such signals, and disclose to consumers that they have the right to use such opt-out mechanisms (e.g., Global Privacy Control).
  • Review Policies. While many of the disclosure requirements of US privacy laws and regulations overlap, there are intricate differences between them, so businesses should review external-facing policies to ensure the disclosures remain accurate and compliant.
  • Conduct DPIAs. Conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) to the extent required by applicable state privacy laws or review existing DPIAs to ensure they remain compliant with applicable laws.
  • Analyze AI Tools. Understand and document how the business uses AI tools, which includes understanding the AI’s inputs and outputs, ensuring appropriate data minimization and IP safeguards are implemented, and analyzing disclosures regarding the use of the AI tools. This includes implementing an internal AI policy that covers whether and to what extent employees can use AI tools.
0
Close-up photograph of a fingerprint.

An overview of biometrics laws in the U.S.

[Updated: September 27, 2023] In addition to state comprehensive privacy laws, state legislatures are increasingly interested in regulating the collection, use, and possession of biometric data. It is therefore imperative for startups and businesses to remain informed of the potential laws that may apply and when. Readers are encouraged to review the following enacted and enforceable biometric laws, and to reach out if concerned that one such law may apply. We will continue monitoring the biometric legislation landscape and will update this resource accordingly.

ILLINOIS

Law: Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) Applies to: Any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or other group, however organized, that possesses, collects, captures, purchases, receives through trade, or otherwise obtains biometric identifiers or biometric information of Illinois residents. Covers:
  • Biometric identifiers: Retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, and scans of hand or face geometry; or
  • Biometric information: Any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual biometric identifier and used to identify an individual.
Enforcement: The law provides individuals with a private right of action, and violations can amount to $5,000 per collection, possession, etc., in violation of the law.

MARYLAND

Law: Labor and Employment Code § 3-717 Applies to: Maryland employers that use facial recognition services for purposes of creating a facial template during an applicant’s interview for employment. Covers:
  • Facial template: Machine-interpretable pattern of facial features that is extracted from one or more images of an individual by technology that analyzes facial features and is used for recognition or persistent tracking of individuals in still or video images.
Enforcement: Maryland Department of Labor.

MONTANA

Law: Facial Recognition for Government Use Act Applies to: Third-party vendors contracting with Montana state or local government agencies for the provision of facial recognition services. Covers:
  • Facial biometric data: Data derived from a measurement, pattern, contour, or other characteristic of an individual’s face, either directly or from an image.
Enforcement: Montana Attorney General can bring enforcement actions, with damages starting at $10,000. The law provides individuals with a private right of action, and violations can amount to $1,000 per violation.

NEW YORK

Law: N.Y. LAB. LAW § 201-aA Applies to: New York employers that fingerprint employees as a condition of securing employment or of continuing employment. Covers:
  • Fingerprints: The law does not define what constitutes a fingerprint, but New York State Department of Labor RO-10-0024 states: “instruments that measure the geometry of the hand are permissible under the Labor Law so long as they do not scan the surface details of the hand and fingers in a manner similar or comparable to the scanning of a fingerprint.”
Enforcement: New York State Department of Labor.
Law: NYC Admin Code §§ 22-1201-1205 Applies to: Places of entertainment, retail stores, or food or drink establishments in New York City that collect biometric identifier information from customers. Covers:
  • Biometric identifier information: Physiological or biological characteristics that are used by or on behalf of a place of entertainment, a retail store, or a food or drink establishment, singly or in combination, to identify, or assist in identifying, an individual.
Enforcement: The law provides individuals with a private right of action, and violations can amount to $5,000 per violation.

OREGON

Law: Portland City Code, Title 34- Digital Justice, Chapters 34.10.010-34.10-050 Applies to: Any individuals and non-government entities in the city of Portland, prohibiting them from using face recognition technologies in any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation, or otherwise. Covers:
  • Face recognition: Automated searching for a reference image in an image repository by comparing the facial features of a probe image with the features of images contained in an image repository.
Enforcement: The law provides individuals with a private right of action , and violations can amount to $1,000 per day for each day of violation.

STATE COMPREHENSIVE PRIVACY LAWS

Laws: Applies to: Each state comprehensive privacy law features various thresholds of applicability. Please see our overview of state comprehensive privacy laws for more information on those thresholds. Covers:
  • Biometric data: Generally means an individual’s physiological, biological, or behavioral characteristics that is used or is intended to be used to establish or authenticate an individual’s identity.
Enforcement: Most state comprehensive privacy laws are enforced by the state’s respective attorney general, but California also authorizes the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce California’s state comprehensive privacy law.

TEXAS

Law: Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier (“CUBI”) Applies to: Any individuals and non-government entities capturing biometric identifiers of Texas individuals for a commercial purpose. (The law does not define what constitutes a “commercial purpose,” but the Texas Attorney General has argued that capturing biometric identifiers to improve or develop products or services constitutes a commercial purpose.) Covers:
  • Biometric identifiers: Retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, or records of hand or face geometry.
Enforcement: Texas Attorney General, which can seek fines of up to $25,000 per violation.

WASHINGTON

Law: Biometric Identifiers Law (“BIL”) Applies to: All individuals and non-government entities that collect, use, and retain biometric identifiers from Washington residents. Covers:
  • Biometric identifiers: Data generated by automatic measurements of an individual’s
    • biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises, or
    • other unique biological patterns or characteristics that is used to identify a specific individual.
Enforcement:  Washington Attorney General under the state’s consumer protection act.
Law: My Health, My Data Act (“MHMDA”) Applies to: All legal entities of any size that conduct business in Washington state or produce or provide products or services targeted to individuals in Washington, and alone or jointly collects, processes, shares, or sells consumer health information. Covers:
  • Consumer health information: Personal information that is linked or reasonably linkable to a consumer and that identifies the consumer’s past, present, or future physical or mental health status.
Enforcement: Washington Attorney General can bring enforcement actions under the state’s consumer protection act. In addition, the law provides individuals with a private right of action.
1 2 3