Target Faces Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Over Alleged Facial Recognition Use

A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that Target must face a biometric privacy lawsuit brought by four residents of the state. The lawsuit claims that Target violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by allegedly using facial recognition technology in its stores to combat shoplifting. The case is being overseen by Judge Jeremy C. Daniel of the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs, Denise Arnold, Blaire Brown, Sandre Wilson, and Lindsay Schumm, allege that Target employs security cameras and video surveillance technology with facial recognition capabilities to identify and track customers. Schumm specifically claims that after entering a Target store, she received a notification indicating that a Target Asset Protection Operations Manager had viewed her LinkedIn profile, suggesting the use of facial recognition technology to identify her. This case follows a growing trend of similar privacy violations in retail settings, as recently demonstrated by an Australian retail chain’s breach of privacy laws for implementing facial recognition technology.

Target has denied these allegations, asserting that it does not use video surveillance cameras that collect biometric data. The company contends that the news articles referenced in the complaint do not explicitly mention facial recognition technology and argues that the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Despite Target’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, Judge Daniel ruled against it, stating that the plaintiffs’ allegations, including Schumm’s assertion regarding her LinkedIn profile, make it plausible that Target is using facial recognition-enabled video surveillance technology. The judge emphasized that at this preliminary stage of litigation, the plaintiffs are not required to prove that Target is using the technology, but rather to present plausible claims that could indicate a violation of BIPA.

The ruling carries significant implications for Target and the retail industry as a whole. Similar to other major retailers considering facial recognition technology for loss prevention, if the allegations are proven true, Target could face substantial liability under BIPA, which prohibits the collection or storage of individuals’ facial geometry without their consent.

Retailers must ensure compliance with BIPA and similar state laws, which require providing notice, stating the specific purpose of collecting biometric identifiers, and obtaining written consent from customers. This is particularly relevant given recent BIPA-related class action lawsuits against major companies for alleged unauthorized collection of biometric data.

The ruling may also prompt other retailers to reassess their use of facial recognition technology and other biometric data collection methods to ensure adherence to privacy laws. This could lead to a broader industry shift towards more transparent and consent-based data collection practices.

Furthermore, the lawsuit underscores the increasing awareness among consumers regarding data privacy issues. As consumers become more vigilant, retailers may need to implement more robust measures to protect customer data and ensure transparency in their data collection practices.

Source: MediaPost

–

November 25, 2024 – by Cass Kennedy