In a significant legal development, a US federal judge has denied Target Corporation’s motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit concerning alleged violations of biometric privacy law. The suit, filed in May 2024 by four Illinois residents, claims Target collected and stored customers’ biometric data without adequate notice or consent, contravening the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA is a state law that strictly regulates the collection, storage, and use of biometric data, including facial recognition and fingerprinting techniques.
The plaintiffs assert that Target utilizes surveillance cameras with facial recognition to monitor potential theft, without informing customers in writing or getting their consent. The allegations further contend that Target has not shared information about the intentions behind data usage, storage duration, or any potential sharing with third parties.
In response to the lawsuit, Target claimed the allegations were speculative and lacked concrete evidence. However, the court rejected this argument, finding the plaintiffs’ claims sufficiently plausible to warrant further judicial proceedings. This decision compels Target to respond to the allegations by December 13, 2024, marking a crucial step forward in this legal battle (Court Listener).
This Target case is part of a broader trend of legal scrutiny concerning biometric data privacy. Notably, Amazon is facing a similar lawsuit, filed in September 2023, which alleges unauthorized collection and distribution of biometric data through its Just Walk Out technology. Echoing the Target situation, the court also denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss in November 2024, with pre-trial proceedings set to initiate in January 2025 (ClassAction.org).
The proceedings against Target and Amazon underline the intricate legal landscape corporations must navigate regarding biometric data practices. As legal battles over data privacy continue to unfold, these cases could set significant precedents influencing policy and corporate behavior in handling biometric information.
For further details, you can read the entire article on JURIST.