There has been a significant amount of litigation related to biometric privacy in recent years. The following cases reflect the evolving landscape of biometric privacy litigation in California, highlighting the challenges and considerations in applying biometric privacy laws across different jurisdictions.
1. Clark v. Yodlee, Inc. (2024)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Boone, et al. v. Snap, Inc. is a significant case concerning biometric privacy and the application of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) to social media platforms. The lawsuit alleges that Snap, Inc., which is the parent company of Snapchat, unlawfully collected, stored, and used biometric data without obtaining user consent, violating BIPA. This case is part of a broader trend of increasing litigation against tech companies over biometric data privacy concerns. This report provides an in-depth case analysis such as its background, legal arguments, court proceedings, and potential legal implications.
The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is a landmark Illinois law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric data. Enacted in 2008, BIPA provides some of the most stringent protections for biometric privacy in the United States. With the increasing use of biometric technology—such as fingerprint scanning, facial recognition, and retina scans—lawsuits under BIPA have surged, leading to significant rulings in both state and federal courts. This article explores the key rules and regulations of BIPA, recent court cases, and the broader implications of biometric data privacy enforcement.
An artificial intelligence (AI) company can be sued for product liability, privacy violations, or security failures under various legal theories. However, the viability of a lawsuit depends on the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the AI system, how it was used, and whether any damages resulted from its malfunction or deficiencies.
1. Product Liability for AI Malfunctions
Can AI be Considered a “Product”?
ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7 (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 603, is a California appellate court decision that clarifies the legal standard a plaintiff must meet to unmask anonymous online defendants. The case underscores the balance courts must strike between protecting free speech rights under the First Amendment and allowing plaintiffs to pursue legitimate legal claims against unknown individuals.
Case Background
– ZL Technologies, Inc. (“ZL”), a software company, filed a lawsuit against anonymous defendants (“Does 1-7”) for defamation and trade libel.
It is a well-known fact that operating an online business necessitates adherence to a complex array of state, federal, and international regulations. Below is an overview of key regulatory areas to consider:
1. State Regulations
California:
Blockchain and cryptocurrency rules and regulations vary widely across jurisdictions with some countries embracing digital assets and others imposing strict restrictions. The following article includes an overview of the current legal landscape in the United States, European Union, China, and other key jurisdictions.
United States
1. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Regulations
Creating a digital currency involves complying with a complex framework of state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the securities laws, anti-money laundering (“AML”) rules, and financial licensing requirements. Here’s an overview of the key legal considerations:
1. Federal Regulations for Creating a Digital Currency
For your information, several federal agencies oversee different aspects of digital currencies, depending on their structure and use.
A government agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) cannot wiretap a private citizen’s phone without probable cause or legal authority since it would violate constitutional and statutory protections. Wiretapping without lawful authority is illegal and can lead to significant consequences for law enforcement officials who overstep their bounds.
1. Fourth Amendment Protections
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, including, but not limited to, electronic surveillance. This means:
On January 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a significant ruling and blocked the Biden administration’s efforts to reinstate net-neutrality regulations. The court determined that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked the legal authority to reclassify broadband services under Title II of the Communications Act, a move essential for enforcing net neutrality rules.
Net Neutrality’s Background
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all data on the internet equally, without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. In 2015, during the Obama administration, the FCC classified broadband internet as a Title II telecommunications service, establishing regulations to enforce net neutrality. These rules were repealed in 2017 under the Trump administration, reclassifying broadband as a Title I information service, which subjected it to less stringent regulation.
