The New York City Council’s Committee on Technology convened a hearing earlier this month on two pieces of proposed legislation that would impose sweeping restrictions on the use of facial recognition technology in commercial and residential settings across the city. The bills have drawn significant pushback from biometrics and security industry associations, who warn that an outright ban would leave businesses and residents more exposed, not less.
The first bill, Int. 213-A (0213-2026), would prohibit places of public accommodation — including grocery stores, music venues, and theaters — from using biometric recognition technology to identify customers. The second, Int. 428 (0428-2026), would restrict the use of facial recognition in apartment buildings. Both are reintroductions of legislation considered by the council in previous sessions that did not advance.
Robert Tappan, Executive Director of the International Biometrics + Identity Association (IBIA), testified before the Committee in person and offered a pointed rebuttal to the proposed prohibitions. “Biometric tools like facial recognition technology keep people, their residences, and their businesses safe, secure, and protected — and help to deter, thwart, and help solve acts of crime and violence,” Tappan wrote to ID Tech following his testimony. “Limiting or banning FRT won’t do anything but encourage more crimes like theft and assault, and threaten the physical and financial safety of citizens, customers, employees, and tenants alike.”
Jake Parker, a senior government relations official at the Security Industry Association, also testified against the bills, arguing the legislation would undermine New Yorkers’ ability to protect themselves. “This government overreach would intrude into people’s daily lives by eliminating their choice to use more secure and convenient services and dictating to New Yorkers how they can and can’t protect themselves in their property, making them less safe,” he said at the hearing.
The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, representing more than 125,000 businesses, submitted written testimony opposing Int. 213-A as currently drafted and urging the Committee to pursue targeted regulation rather than an outright ban. In its submission, the Chamber warned that a prohibition would “disproportionately harm small, minority-owned, women-owned, and immigrant-owned enterprises that operate on thin margins and cannot afford to hire full-time, off-duty law enforcement officers to replace technology-based security.”
Proponents of the legislation have framed the bills as a necessary check on surveillance technology that has expanded faster than the city’s legal framework. Councilmember Shahana Hanif, the prime sponsor of Int. 213-A, cited the Wegmans controversy as a catalyst. Wegmans confirmed earlier this year that it uses facial recognition at its New York City locations to address elevated theft risk. “Many of us know the feeling of discovering our credit card information has been stolen. It’s invasive and frightening, but you can cancel a credit card and get a new one,” Hanif said during the hearing. “You cannot cancel your face.”
New York City currently requires businesses to post signage when collecting biometric data from customers, but the proposed legislation would go considerably further by prohibiting collection outright. The push follows a broader pattern of state and local governments reassessing FRT policies, a trend also visible in Onondaga County’s recent consideration of updated biometric signage requirements in the wake of the same Wegmans disclosure. IBIA said it will continue advocating with lawmakers at the federal, state, and local levels for “fair, workable, and effective solutions” that preserve public safety without foreclosing on legitimate uses of the technology.
–
By Ji-seo Kim & Alex Perala
